IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 486 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2010 IN EP.322/2008 IN OS.61/1991 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/3RD JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------- KOCHUPAULY,S/O.KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA KSHEMAM UNIQUE KURIES (P) LTD, THRISSUR. 680001. 2. KOCHAMMA,W/O.AUGUSTHY,KUTTICHAKKU HOUSE, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 680 307. 3. AUGUSTHY,S/O.KUTTICHKKU ANTONY, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 680 307. 4. GEORGE,S/O.KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,680 307. 5. LILLY AUGISTIN,W/O.AKKARA AUGUSTIN & D/O.KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY,KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.680307. 6. SUNNY,S/O.KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.680 307/ 7. MARY JOSE,W/O.KURUVITHADOM JOSE & D/O.KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY,KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.680 307. CRP No.486/2010 2 8. RONY JOY,W/O.MAZHUVANCHERRY JOY, D/O.KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY,KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,680 307. 9. LUCY KURUVILA,ELINJIKKAL KURUVILA & D/O. KOCHAMMA & AUGUSTHY,KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE/ DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,680 307. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.486 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. ORDER Judgment debtor No.3 in E.P.No.322 of 2008 in O.S.No.61 of 1991 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chalakkudy is the petitioner before me challenging the order dated August 18, 2010 finding that in spite of having means petitioner has refused and neglected to pay the decree amount and issuing warrant of arrest to him. Respondent No.1/decree holder examined PW1 to prove means of petitioner. He stated that petitioner has share in about 14 financial institutions and is doing business at Kodakara, Chalakkudy, Thrissur and Ernakulam. In the proof affidavit also there is mention about the 14 financial institutions where the petitioner has shares. There are also documentary evidence produced by respondent No.1 to support that case. Ext.A1 is a letter dated 13.06.1981 from petitioner himself stating that value of his shares is Rs.1,22,000/- and that he is getting Rs.25,000/- as sitting fee in those companies or partnership firms as the case may be. PW1 stated that petitioner is a real estate broker earning around Rs.23,000/-. Ext.A2 is produced to show that petitioner has telephone connection in his name. Ext.A3 is produced to show that petitioner is a partner in one of the financial institutions. Exts.A5 and A6 are also produced for the same purpose. It is seen from Ext.A6 that the firm where petitioner has interest is engaged in chitty business. Petitioner has given evidence as DW1 and stated that he has no means. According to him, the financial institutions are CRP No.486/2010 2 closed. But he did not produce any acceptable evidence in that line. What is produced is Exts.B1 and B2, copies of sale certificates issued from the court of learned Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda in O.S.Nos.116 of 1991 and 203 of 1991 to show that certain items of properties belonging to him were sold in court auction. That does not in any way controvert evidence given by PW1 as to the interest of petitioner in various financial institutions, one of which is engaged in chitty business as well. This Court in Kuppuswamy v. P.G.Menon (1992(2) KLT 203) has held that strict proof of every details is not necessary and if some evidence indicating means of the judgment debtor is given it is the responsibility of judgment debtor to rebut that evidence. Executing court has discussed the evidence adduced by both sides at length and found that evidence adduced by petitioner is not sufficient to controvert evidence of respondent No.1/decree holder as PW1. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner and considering facts and circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with that finding. 2. Though a request for time for payment of the decree amount is made having regard to the circumstances I am not inclined to think that grant of time is warranted on facts taking into account the amount involved. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that the amount involved in this case is around Rs.10,000/- and there are other execution petitions filed against petitioner where amount involved exceeds more than Rupees one lakh. Apprehension of petitioner is that finding in this case might be taken against petitioner in other execution petitions. I do not find reason to make any CRP No.486/2010 3 observation in that regard in this proceeding. It is open to the petitioner to raise appropriate contentions in other cases if any as to the binding nature of the finding in this proceeding. Revision Petition is dismissed. I.A.No.2297 of 2010 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks