Thuraisingham V. Kanagaratnam

1957 Present: Basnayake, C.J., and Pulle, J.

THURAISINGHAM and another, Appellants, and KANAGARATNAM
and others, Respondents

S. C. 794-D. C. Jaffna, 10,875

    Execution of proprietary decree-Procedure in event of resistance to execution-Civil Procedure code, ss. 325,377(b).

A Judge making an order under section 325 of the Civil Procedure Code must indicate in his order that he has considered the evidence exhibited or adduced and that he is satisfied that the material facts of the petition are prima facie established and that he is of opinion that on the footing of those facts the petitioner is entitled to the remedy, or to the order in his favour.

At the hearing of the petition after the interlocutory order the judgment creditor is not relieved of the burden of satisfying the Court that the obstruction or resistance complained of was occasioned by the judgment-debtor or by some person at his instigation. Section 377 (b) of the Civil Procedure Code does not cast that burden on the judgment-debtor nor has it the effect of imposing on him the burden of leading evidence to the contrary before the judgment- creditor has proved his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document