Athiyot Haris vs Nanthoth Thazhakuni Hameed Haji
2021 Latest Caselaw 19099 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
       MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
                         OP(C) NO. 1084 OF 2018
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 38/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM,
                                KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

           ATHIYOT HARIS
           AGED 35 YEARS
           S/O.KUNHALI, IYYAMKOD AMSOM AND DESOM, VISHNUMANGALAM P.O.,
           VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 506.
           BY ADV SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

           NANTHOTH THAZHAKUNI HAMEED HAJI
           S/O.MOOSAKUTTY, RESIDING AT KALLERINTAVIDA, KUMMANKODE
           AMSOM, NADAPURAM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-
           673 504.
           BY ADVS.
           SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
           SMT.R.RANJANIE



     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP(C) NO. 1084 OF 2018
                                        2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021

The matter was argued in detail by the learned

Counsel for the petitioner, contending that the

petitioner's property is not liable to be attached in

view of the exemption contained under Section 60 (c)

of C.P.C. The main challenge is against the finding,

having been described as a businessman in the

agreement, agriculture cannot be taken as the

petitioner's primary avocation.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent

countered the contention and submitted that the

petitioner had failed to produce even an iota of

evidence to prove his entitlement for exemption

under Section 60(c) of C.P.C.

3. Having heard the learned Counsel on either

side at length, I am not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order, despite the persuasive attempts of

the learned Counsel for the petitioner, including the OP(C) NO. 1084 OF 2018

submission that the petitioner lost one of his kidneys

and is finding it extremely difficult to eke out a living.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent

submitted that a reasonable time can be granted for

payment, provided the petitioner proves his bona

fides by paying an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees

one lakh only) immediately.

5. In the result, the Original Petition is disposed

of without interfering with the impugned order but

granting the petitioner time for payment of the

amount in the following manner.

i. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one

lakh only) shall be remitted before the execution

court within a period of one month from today.

ii. If the petitioner complies with the said

direction, he shall be granted six months' time

for paying the balance amount due, with the

interest accrued.

iii. If the petitioner fails to effect payment as

directed, the execution court can proceed to

execute the decree from the stage at which it OP(C) NO. 1084 OF 2018

was stopped, pursuant to the interim order

issued by this Court.

The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN

JUDGE NB/13-9 OP(C) NO. 1084 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1084/2018

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.38/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM

EXT.P1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.12.2011.

EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE DEFENDANT DATED 11.9.2015 IN OS NO.38/2015.

EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.3.2016 IN OS NO.38/2015.

EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY ORDER IN EP NO.125/2016 DATED 17.1.2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.3.2018 ISSUED BY MUNSIFF COURT, NADAPURAM.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

True Copy P.A to Judge