IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2011 / 29TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3404 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.146/2001 OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD CC.394/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPPALAM .............. PETITIONER: ------------------- M.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, S/O.LATE M.K. KANNAN, SREESATHA INDUSTRIES, KINAVALLUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. C.A.ABRAHAM, S/O.C.M.ABRAHAM, CHEMMARIKKADU HOUSE, SHORNUR, PARTNER, SHORNUR GENERAL FINANCE, SHORNUR P.O., PALAKKAD-679121. 2. MARY @ GEETHA ABRAHAM, W/O.C.A.ABRAHAM (JR.), MAYOORAM, SHORNUR, MANAGING PARTNER, SHORNUR GENERAL FINANCE, SHORNUR P.O., PALAKKAD-679 121. 3. M.PADMINI, W/O.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, SREESATHA INDUSTRIES, KINAVALLUR P.O., PALAKKAD-678 615. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP(C).No. 3404 of 2011(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EP.31/2008 IN OS.146/2001 BEFORE THE SUB-COURT, PALAKKAD. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC.394/2008 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, OTTAPALAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3404 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T Prayer in this petition is to keep the proceedings in E.P. No.31 of 2008 in O.S. No.146 of 2001 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad in abeyance until the criminal case based on Ext.P2, complaint preferred by the first respondent is disposed of. 2. It is not disputed that respondents 1 and 2 obtained a decree for recovery of money against petitioner and the third respondent based on a hire purchase agreement. There was an earlier execution petition filed in the year 2007. Petitioner and respondent 1 and 2 stated that since the vehicle is not motorable it is not being taken possession. Later, contrary to that statement first respondent preferred Ext.P2, complaint to the police in the year, 2008 and based on that complaint a criminal was registered and petitioner and others were charge sheeted. That case is pending trial before the criminal court. Prayer in this petition is that until the criminal case is over the execution proceedings in E.P. No.31 of 2008 should be stalled. 3. I have gone through the execution petition filed by O.P(C) No.3404 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent 1 and 2. There, what is stated is that the vehicle is not being taken possession as it is understood to be of no worth from the report of the Amin. Exhibit P2, complaint is that petitioner and other accused in that case dismantled the vehicle and sold it in parts and thereby cheated the first respondent. The decision in the criminal has no bearing so far as execution of the decree is concerned. Moreover it is also the settled position of law that decision of the criminal court is not binding on the civil court or vice-versa. Therefore the request to keep the execution proceedings in abeyance until the criminal case is over, cannot be granted. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv