IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2011 / 31ST JYAISHTA 1933 CRP.No. 211 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2011 IN EP.322/2009 IN OS.233/2008 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------------------------------- P.PERAVAKKUTTY, S/O.KUNHIKANDAN, MINI DEPOSIT COLLECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, KPK MENON ROAD, NAGARAM ASMOM AND DESOM, RESIDING AT 1/300, ROHINI, ARATHOOTHAYIL PARAMBA, KURUVATTOOR AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER -------------------------------------------------- THE VIJAYA BANK, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR BRANCH MANAGER, CHEROOTTY ROAD, NAGARAM AMSOM AND DESOM OF KOZHIKODE TALUK PIN 673 002. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP 211/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S DOCUMENTS : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2011 IN E.P.NO.322/09 IN O.S.NO.233/08 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-I, KOZHIKODE. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.211 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June, 2011 O R D E R The first judgment debtor in E.P.No.322 of 2009 in O.S.No.233 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode challenges the order dated 23rd February 2011, by which the executing court rejected the plea of no means raised by the petitioner and ordered him to be detained in civil prison. Warrant was ordered to be issued against him. 2. The petitioner availed loan from the respondent Bank. The suit was decreed on 20.10.2009. The amount claimed in the Execution Petition is ` 57,216/- with interest of ` 6,007/-. The costs awarded is Rupees 7,306/-. The respondent has claimed execution costs as well. 3. The decree was sought to be executed by the arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The petitioner CRP 211/2011 2 pleaded no means before the executing court. PW1 was examined on behalf of the decree holder and the judgment debtor was examined as RW1. 4. The petitioner/first judgment debtor is a Bill Collector for the last 33 years in the Punjab National Bank. He receives commission from the Punjab National Bank. Exhibit A2 series would show that that the petitioner received a sum of ` 84,049/- in the year 2002-2003, ` 1,26,691/- in 2001-2002 and a sum of Rupees 1,35,178/- in 2000-2001. Exhibit A3 statement would show that the respondent is getting substantial amount by way of commission per month. Exhibit A1 was produced to show that the petitioner stated before the decree holder, at the time of availing the loan, that he is having 70 cents of land in which his house is situated. The petitioner stated that the said property is not available with him. But he did not produce any document to show that he transferred the property. The court below relied on the evidence of PW1 and Exhibit A1 to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner is still the owner of 70 cents of land and a CRP 211/2011 3 house. When Exhibit A3 was put to the petitioner during cross examination, he even stated that he does not know about the same. The petitioner, being a Bill Collector of the Punjab National Bank for the last 33 years, had shown the audacity to even deny the statement made by the Bank as to the Commission given to him in his capacity as the Bill Collector. The court below did not rely on the evidence of RW1. The court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has the means to pay the decree debt and that he neglected to pay the same. Accordingly, the court below directed warrant to be issued against the petitioner. 5. There is no ground to interfere with the well considered order passed by the court below. The finding was arrived at by the court below on appreciation of evidence and it cannot be set at naught in revision, unless it is shown that the order passed by the court below is perverse or that it is vitiated by jurisdictional error. CRP 211/2011 4 6. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to pay off the decree debt. I do not think it is necessary to issue notice to the respondent for granting a reasonable time to the petitioner to pay off the decree debt. I think four months' time can be granted to pay off the entire decree debt. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as follows : (i) The petitioner shall pay the decree debt in four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 29th July 2011 and the rest of the three installments shall be paid on or before the last working day of the succeeding months. (ii) If the petitioner fails to pay any of the instalments, the whole of the balance would become due on such default and the executing court shall issue warrant CRP 211/2011 5 against the petitioner for execution of the decree in the manner indicated in the order impugned. (iii) The order dated 23rd February, 2011 passed by the executing court shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four months to enable the petitioner to pay off the decree debt in the manner indicated above. However, if default is committed by the petitioner in the matter of payment of any of the instalments, the executing court would be free to proceed with the execution as mentioned above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl