← Library
High Court of KeralaCRP/455/2015dismissed

Joy Joseph v. Federal Bank Ltd

2015-09-22Honourable Mr. Justice K.Abraham Mathew2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/31ST BHADRA, 1937 CRP.No. 455 of 2015 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN AIR 152/2005 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY DATED 17-06-2015 REVISION PETITIONER(S)/1ST JUDGMNET DEBTOR:

------------------------------------------- JOY JOSEPH AGED 44 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, CHOLANPUZHA HOUSE, KOLAKKAD PO KANICHAR PO, TAHALSSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER/2ND JUDGMNET DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------

1. FEDERAL BANK LTD KELAKAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER, KELAKAM KANNUR DISTRICT 670674

2. VALSAMMA W/O.SEBASTIAN, THAIPALATH HOUSE, (PO) KAKKAYANAD, THALASSERI TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 670675 R1 BY ADV. SRI.LAWRENCE D'CUNHA R1 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW BONSTANE R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.JOY R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.MADHUSOODANAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.PAUL THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

--------------------------------------- C.R.P. No.455 of 2015 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.100 of 2009 in which the 1st respondent is the decree holder and the 2nd respondent, the second judgment debtor. The petitioner filed an application for a direction to the 1st respondent decree holder to implead KFC which is said to be one of his creditors. By the impugned order the learned Sub Judge has dismissed it.

2.

Heard.

3.

It is true that the impugned order is not a speaking order. But to that extent it is illegal. But that does not mean that the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. A judgment debtor cannot compel the decree holder to implead his (judgment debtor's) other creditors in the execution petition. I do not find any merit in the CRP. In the result, this C.R.P is dismissed.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE pm