IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 111 of 2008 ----------------------------- (OS.63/2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR) .................... PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SAIDU, S/O.KANIYARKUZHIYIL KUNHIMOIDEEN TIRUR TALUK, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM PARAVANNUR DESOM, KUTTIKALATHANI. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP, SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALI HAJI, S/O.KALATHILAKATH RAYINKUTTY TIRUR TALUK, KALPAKANCHERY AMSOM PARAVANNUR DESOM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/02/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 326/2008 IN C.R.P. NO. 111/2008 DISMISSED 06/02/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 111 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Tirur in E.P.46/06 in O.S.63/01. By the findings the learned Munsiff held that the respondent/judgment debtor is having means to pay and is neglecting to pay and therefore ordered arrest. To prove the case the decree holder has produced Ext.A1 document coupled with his oral evidence. Ext.A1 would reveal that the judgment debtor has got a property having an extent of 8 cents. It is a settled position that when the decree holder is able to prove that the judgment debtor is having property through which he can realise the amount and pay the amount then it follows that the means is proved. It is on that basis the Court below has passed the order. The learned counsel would contend that really the said property had been disposed of by him and if he is given an opportunity, will be able to produce documentary evidence. I feel that an opportunity can be given to him but not without any condition. Therefore I set aside the order of CRP NO. 111 of 2008 -:2:- the Court below on condition that the revision petitioner makes a payment of Rs.20,000/- within a period of one month to the decree holder. If he pays the said amount the Court shall permit him to adduce evidence in support of his plea of no means. If he commits default the Court below can proceed with the execution of the warrant. As I have given one month's time the warrant of arrest shall not be executed till that time and if he pays Rs.20,000/- and contest the case then till disposal of the petition on merits. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-