SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Mad) 166

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
K. Manokaran – Appellant
Versus
A. U. Subbannan – Respondent


Advocates:
P.K. Muthukumar, for Petitioner; P.R. Balasubramanian, for Respondent.

Judgement

ORDER :- Manokaran, the petitioner herein, is the judgment-debtor.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 159 of 1997 against the petitioner/defendant and obtained a money decree on 12-12-2000 for Rs. 74,576.25. No appeal was filed by the petitioner/defendant against the said money decree. So, the respondent/plaintiff filed a petition in E.P. No. 45 of 2001 under Order 21, Rule 11(2) , C.P.C. on 12-3-2001 praying for the arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor under Sections 51 and 55, C.P.C. for the execution of the said decree. The matter came up for final disposal on 3-7-2001. On the date, the petitioner/defendant as well his counsel was absent. Though the counsel entered appearance earlier, no counter was filed till then. Therefore, an order of arrest was passed in the said application on 3-7-2001. Challenging the same, the petitioner/defendant has filed this Civil Revision Petition.

3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decisions in (1) Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470; (2) P. Azeez Ahmed v. State Bank of India, AIR 1995 Madras 194; (3) Muthuswa





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top