IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 19476 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.91/2005 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ V.V.JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.NANU MARAR, VADAKKE VEETTIL, VELIYAMBRA P.O., P.R.NAGAR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SHOBHA KURUVILA, W/O.LATE JOHN KURUVILA, RESIDING AT "SHOBHA", BEHIND AKG HOSPITAL, KANNUR-2. 2. MEGHA KURUVILA, D/O.LATE JOHN KURUVILA, RESIDING AT DO. DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.19476 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is filed by judgment debtor in E.P. No.135 of 2007 in O.S. No.91 of 2005 of the court of learned Munsiff, Koothuparamba challenging order of that court issuing warrant of arrest to him on the finding that in spite of having sufficient means he has refused or neglected to pay the amount due under the decree. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that finding of the executing court is not correct. 2. There is a bar to entertain this Writ Petition since the impugned order was challenged in W.P(C) No.34254 of 2009 but that was dismissed as not pressed. Even otherwise on going through Ext.P3, order I am unable to accept contention of petitioner. Though by Ext.P2, petitioner denied that he has means, the oral and documentary evidence on record including that of petitioner as D.W1 would show that he is sufficiently affluent to discharge liability under the decree. Exhibit A1 is the application for loan preferred by petitioner where he has sated that his monthly income is Rs.8,000/- and has landed properties worth Rs.5,00,000/-. In his evidence as D.W.1 he stated that he W.P(C) No.19476 of 2010 -: 2 :- had a fall from a tree and suffered injuries. But that is not proved by any acceptable evidence. It has come out from his own evidence that he was running business in the name and style “Aiswarya Marketing”. In the words of executing court petitioner is leading a luxurious life. Contention advanced is that executing court was not impressed by the evidence of respondent regarding means of petitioner. What executing court observed is that respondent was not able to produce documentary evidence regarding income of petitioner but petitioner was having income at the time of availing loan as per Ext.A1. In Kuppuswamy v. P.G. Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) it is held that though the burden of proving means is with the decree holder it is not as if he is required to bring in evidence regarding all source of income of judgment debtor and if some evidence is adduced it is for the judgment debtor to adduce contra evidence. Having gone through the impugned order I do not find any rebuttal of such evidence. As such challenge to Ext.P3, order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, Writ Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv