P V MATHEW Vs. BANK OF COCHIN LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd judgment debtor in O.S.No. 57/72 of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Cochin is the common revision petitioner. The suit was for money; and 40 cents of land with a residential building therein was attached before judgment. After judgment, the decree was transferred to the Ernakulam Sub Court for execution. When notice under O.21 R.37 was issued, the petitioner entered appearance and filed objections. The proceedings were thereafter adjourned from time to time to enable the judgment debtors to effect payment. On 1st November, 1977 the petitioner did not appear. The decree holder filed an affidavit to prove means and arrest was ordered. Warrant for arrest was issued several times, hut the petitioner remained elusive. By November, 1978 the Idikki Judicial District was formed and a District Court and Sub Court were established at Thodupuzha As the petitioner's place of residence fell within the jurisdiction of the newly formed Sub Court at Thodupuzha, the execution proceedings were transferred to that court under S.24 CPC. That court also ordered issue of warrant twice or thrice, but the petitioner was still not arrested. On 22-6-79 the court passed the following order.

(2.) The executing court at Thodupuzha was thus called upon to consider the questions of "means" again. The petitioner also filed a fresh petition under S.47 (E. A. 106/80), praying for dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that there was no valid transfer of the execution proceedings from Ernakulam to Thodupuzha The question of exempting the 40 cents of land and the building under proviso (c) to S.60(1) was also raised. The court allowed the parties to lead further evidence, heard them and overruled the objections by two separate orders. The present two revisions are directed against the said orders.

(3.) The objections raised before the court below are reiterated before this court also with an added challenge to the constitutionality of not only the proviso to S.51, but also the main provision The arguments have been elaborate, except as regards the constitutional question, and their excellence must remain unaffected by the conclusions reached herein.