IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 FAO.No. 316 of 2009(T) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4 /11 /2009 IN EA 394/2009 IN EP.184/2007 IN O.S. 137/98 of SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.A.KURUVILA, AGED 56, PROPRIETOR, KALPAKA PROCESSING COMPANY, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT THURITHITHARA HOUSE, EARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MALIAKKAL FINANCIERS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MATHEW M.GEORGE, S/O.M.C.MATHEW, AGED 59 YEARS, MARUTHI VILAS, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE(CAVEATOR) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ F.A.O.No.316 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.11.2009 of the Sub Court, Alappuzha in E.A.No.394/2009 in E.P.No.184/2007 in O.S.No.137/1998 appointing Receiver in execution of a money decree. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has produced power of attorney and that without considering the same or the objection filed by the appellant, the Court below allowed the Receiver application. Learned counsel submits that even in execution proceedings, order of appointment of Receiver is to be passed on equitable considerations. He points out that one of the properties is an industrial unit. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that very huge amounts are due. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no FAO.316/2009 -2- other mode available at present. 3. Having regard to the facts of the case, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside on condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) to the respondent within two weeks from today. If the amount is not paid as directed the appeal will stand dismissed. If the amount is deposited as aforesaid, the Execution Court will take up the application, consider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after considering the objections of the appellant also. Sd/= (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. Sd/= (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) MS //True Copy// PA to Judge