Kerala High Court
M.V.Pramod vs The Secretary, Kamballur ... on 1 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
OP(C) NO. 853 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP 122/2018 OF MUNSIFF
COURT, HOSDRUG
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
M.V.PRAMOD, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. CHANDU,
RESIDING AT KUNDAYADU VEEDU, KAMBALLUR,
CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, KAMBALLUR P.O.,
VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-670 511.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER:
THE SECRETARY,
KAMBALLUR KSHEEROLPADAKA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM
NO.KG 31D (APCOS), KAMBALLUR,
CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE, KAMBALLUR P.O.,
VELLARIKUNDU TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-670 511.
BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C) No.853/2020
2
JUDGMENT
This Original Petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the Judgment Debtor in E.P.
No.122/2019 pending before the Munsiff Court,
Hosdurg.
2. The petitioner impugns order dated
19.02.2021, whereby the learned Munsiff after
holding enquiry under Order XXI Rule 40 found
that the petitioner had means to pay the
decree debt. Accordingly, warrant of arrest
had been ordered.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
Judgment Debtor as well as the Decree Holder.
4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/Judgment Debtor
that an appeal has been preferred challenging
the award of the arbitrator. But no stay
granted. However, the learned counsel failed
O.P.(C) No.853/2020
to substantiate any infirmity to the order
impugned.
5. I am not inclined to comment anything
regarding the appeal.
6. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondent/Decree Holder that
the petitioner is having landed properties
and the Decree Holder produced Exts.A1 to A3
title deeds to prove the same. The same were
admitted by the Judgment Debtor though he had
stated during cross-examination that his wife
also was having joint ownership in relation
to the property covered by Ext.A1 title deed.
7. I have perused the order impugned.
It could be gathered that the petitioner, who
is having landed properties and having other
income as per the evidence entered by PW1,
purposefully delayed the repayment of amount
without any justification. So the court below
O.P.(C) No.853/2020
rightly found that the petitioner had means
to pay the decree debt and ordered arrest
warrant, after completing enquiry under Rule
XXI Rule 40 of C.P.C and the said order is
perfectly correct. The same does not suffer
from perversity or arbitrariness to have
interference.
Therefore this Original Petition is
dismissed with liberty to the Execution Court
to go on with execution of the arrest warrant
to release the decree debt.
Sd/-
A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.
ww
O.P.(C) No.853/2020
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 853/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION
PETITION DATED 25.8.2019 IN E.P.
NO.122/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
DATED 12.12.2019 FILED BY THE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR IN E.P.NO.122/2019 ON THE FILES
OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
12.12.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN
E.P.NO.122/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE
LEARNED MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG.
EXHIBIT P4 THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.12.2019 FILED
BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN E.P.
NO.122/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, HOSDURG.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED 19.2.2019 IN E.P.NO.122/2019 ON
THE FILES OF THE LEARNED MUNSIFF'S
COURT, HOSDURG.
