IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 332 of 2006(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/03/2006 IN EP.NO.48/2005 IN OS.344/2002 of MUNSIF COURT, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/JUDGEMENT DEBOR-I: --------------------------------------------- SHAJI V.G., S/O. GOPALAN NAIR, VATTAVELIL HOUSE, KURUVAMMUZHY P.O., KORATTY BHAGOM, ERUMELY, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.TITUS MANI MR.S.SURAJ (PALATHANATHU) RESPONDENTS/ DECREE HOLDER/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR-2: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CPM CHITTY FUND (PVT) LTD., CPM ESTATE, ERUMELY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.M.JOHN, CHALAKUZHY HOUSE, ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAMESH M.N., METTUMPURATH HOUSE, ERUMELY P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. ADV. MR.RINNY STEPHEN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 332 of 2006(C) ORDER ON I.A.NO.1448/2006 IN C.R.P.NO.332/2006 CLOSED. 2.12.2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.332 of 2006 - C --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.48 of 2005 in O.S.No.344 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally. The decree executed is passed in a suit for money and, the first respondent is the decree holder. Petitioner resisting the decree set up a plea of no means. Learned Munsiff after conducting an enquiry in which authorised representative of the decree holder and also the petitioner/first judgment debtor were examined came to the conclusion that the plea of no means canvassed by the petitioner is meritless. On forming such conclusion learned Munsiff passed the impugned order directing issue of warrant against the petitioner. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the plea canvassed that he is not possessed of any means submitted that the court below has not examined that plea with reference to the materials tendered in the case. There was no adequate evidence to conclude that his plea of no means is meritless. The decree holder C.R.P.No.332 of 2006 - C 2 has let in evidence that the judgment debtor is possessed of immovable properties and if that be so, avoiding personal execution against the petitioner his property can be proceeded with, is the further submission of the counsel. Perusing the order passed by the learned Munsiff, I find there is no illegality of impropriety warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is seen the learned Munsiff after appreciating the materials tendered has come to the conclusion that the plea of no means canvassed by the petitioner is devoid of any merit. The judgment debtor cannot insist that the decree holder has to proceed against the property and not personally against him in execution of the decree. It is for the decree holder to choose one of the two modes for realising the decree debt. There is no merit in the challenge raised against the order passed by the learned Munsiff directing issue of warrant against the petitioner/first judgment debtor. Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-