K.N.BHASKARAN UNNI, MANAGING DIRECTOR v. K.P.CHAMY

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT: --------------- K.P.CHAMY, S/O.K.P.RAMAN, PROPRIETOR, SLUBHADRA SURGICALS, ANANGANADY P.O., PANAMANA, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE FOR R1 SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN FOR R1 SMT.NISHA BOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXTS.: APPENDIX(WPC 25069/09) EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION EP NO.276/07 IN O.S.NO.254/02 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR DATED 25.6.2007. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN TO EXT.P1 DATED 13.11.2007. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR IN E.P.NO.276/07 IN O.S.NO.254/02 DATED 22.8.2008. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25069 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.276 of 2007 in O.S.No.254 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. Decree executed is one for money. In the execution proceedings, to the notice issued under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, petitioner/judgment debtor remained ex parte. After taking the evidence of the decree holder and being satisfied that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means to satisfy the decree debt, the court below ordered to issue warrant against him for his detention in civil prison for a period of three months. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

In response to the notice, the decree holder has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. Conditional stay of the order impugned was granted directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- within the time stipulated to discharge the decree debt. Though it was represented the amount had been deposited and W.P.C.No.25069/09 - 2 - on the basis of which operation of the stay order was extended, it is now reported that there was no such deposit as directed. That itself is a circumstance indicating that the petitioner/judgment debtor is disentitled to canvass any relief invoking the visitorial jurisdiction of this court. Perusing P3 order passed by the court below directing to issue warrant against him for realisation of the decree debt, I find that no interference is called for. The evidence of the decree holder that the judgment debtor is possessed sufficient means remain unimpeached. Writ Petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE