Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J
V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
RAMANI – Respondent
WP(C)/11327/2004
Arrest - Execution Proceedings - Code of Civil Procedure Section 51, 60 - The court evaluated the legality of arresting the petitioner for non-payment of a decree-debt considering his income and the provisions limiting attachment of salaries.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an execution court order for his arrest due to non-payment of a decree-debt, claiming insufficient legal evidence to justify the finding of liability for arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the execution court's decision unsupported by adequate evidence, particularly noting that only attachable portions of the petitioner's salary should be considered against his means.
Issues: Whether the execution court correctly determined the petitioner's ability to pay the decree-debt justifying his arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that only the attachable portion of a salary can be used to establish a person's means for potential arrest under execution proceedings.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of, keeping the execution order in abeyance on condition of monthly payments.
J U D G M E N T
Ext.P1 order passed by the execution court directing arrest and detention of the petitioner on the basis that he has not paid the decree-debt in spite of sufficient means is under challenge in these proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr.V.R.Gopu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the finding of the court below that the petitioner is liable to be arrested is not based on any legal evidence. He submitted that it was conceded before the court below that the only source of income for the petitioner is the salary that he draws from the Museum Department and Ext.P2 certificate was produced before the court below which did not place any reliance on Ext.P2.
2. Mr.G.Sudheer, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the court below was perfectly justified in ignoring Ext.P2 which does not even mention the precise amount which is received by the petitioner every month.
3. In this Court Ext.P3 salary certificate has been produced by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is dated 4.11.2003 and the same shows that the emoluments totally drawn by the petitioner as on that date is WP(C)N0.11327/04 Rs.4293/-. Obviously the amount has escalated by now to at least Rs.6000/-. The attachable portion of the petitioner's salary in terms of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be around Rs.1500/- to Rs.1750/-. It is trite that the unattachable portion of the salary of a person cannot be reckoned as means for the purpose of ordering arrest under Section 51 of the Code.
4. Under these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition itself issuing the following directions:-
Ext.P1 will be kept in abeyance by the court below on condition that the petitioner pays to the respondent, on the 15th of every month, at the rate of Rs.1500/- without fail. In the event of any default by the petitioner in making payments as above, Ext.P1 shall become operative and the learned Munsiff will ensure that the petitioner is arrested and detained in accordance with law.
No costs.
(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl WP(C)N0.11327/04
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
