AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 279 wordsA.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent, who would contend that E.P. No. 28 of 2007 in O.S.
No. 420 of 1995 is a limitation EP and that the EP amount comes to Rs. 15,709/90 and that even after the filing of the EP, the decree holder has
not realised even a single paisa towards EP amount. Before the Executing Court even though there was a plea taken by the Judgment Debtor that
he has no means, Judgment Debtor has filed to prove the same. Hence, the Executing Court had ordered arrest.
When the Revision was taken up for hearing on 26.03.2009, before this Court it was represented on behalf of the Revision Petitioner /
Judgment Debtor that he will discharge the entire EP amount by 06.04.2009 ie., today. Now the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner
represents that on merits the Revision may be disposed of.
Atleast to show his bonafide the Judgment Debtor would have made part payment towards the EP amount. The learned Counsel for the
respondent would state that the Judgment Debtor is working as a President of the Co-operative Bank and he is getting monthly salary. Under such
circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Executing Court in EP. No. 28 of 2007 in O.S. No. 420 of 1995 on the
file of the Court of District Munsif, Thirukoilur.
In fine, the Revision is dismissed. The Judgment Debtor is given time till 20.04.2009 to discharge the entire EP amount, failing which, the order
of the Executing Court to arrest is to be executed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.