Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
T.P.NOUFAL – Appellant
Versus
T.K.NANU – Respondent
OP(C) NO. 2586 OF 2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to execution order (Para 1) |
| 2. non-speaking order requirement (Para 2) |
| 3. court's directive for reconsideration (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The challenge in the original petition is against Ext.P6 order whereby the execution court has found that the judgment debtor has sufficient means and directed to issue warrant.
2. The original petition has been pending before this Court for the past more than one year and no purpose will be served by retaining it any further. A reading of Ext.P6 would show that it is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been stated despite the fact that evidence was adduced.
3. In the above circumstances, this original petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order is set aside. The court below is directed to reconsider the issue based on the evidence which had already been adduced and pass a reasoned order.
sd/-
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
