IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 952 of 2007(C) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/08/2007 IN EP.48/05 IN OS.353/2002 OF PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA. .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAGEERSAIT, S/O THAIPARAMBIL VEETIL LATHEEF SAIT, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR). RESPONDENT/ 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTORS/1ST DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- GIRISH, S/O MANALIKATIL CHANDRAN, KADUKACHUVADU DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, METHAL P.O., KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.952 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Prl.Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda in E.P.No.48 of 2005 in O.S.No.353 of 2002. The decree holder moved an application for execution of issuance of arrest warrant against the first judgment debtor and the court below found that the decree holder failed to prove that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the amount. It is against that decision the present revision is filed. 2. Learned counsel for the decree holder submits that the court below has not properly applied its mind and therefore it requires interference. The decree debt comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. In the court below it is contended that the first judgment debtor is running business in the name and style “M.K.L Battery Water & Rent a Car” and in order to prove that the 1st judgment debtor is the owner of the said business, the decree holder had produced an advertisement during Onam celebration and had also examined two persons to prove that the judgment debtor has taken on rent her property and another person to prove that her husband has given the room on rent. So an attempt CRP 952/2007 -:2:- was made by the decree holder to prove the business of the first judgment debtor. It is true that the evidence adduced itself may not be sufficient to hold that he is having income and is evading payment. It is also to be stated that when a person is conducting business of battery water and rent a car at least he must be assessed to profession tax by the Municipality or the Panchayat concerned and also there will be some documents to prove that he is running such a business. If those materials are available, it will be a better piece of evidence. Here, the first judgment debtor does not bother to come to give any evidence. I think interest of justice requires an opportunity to the decree holder to prove the means of the judgment debtor. 3.Therefore, I set aside the order passed by the court below and direct it to consider the matter afresh after affording equal opportunity to the decree holder and to the first judgment debtor to prove their respective contentions and also permit them to produce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their contentions. Since the first judgment debtor/respondent has not appeared before this Court, the court below can give a notice to the counsel who had appeared before it and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the CRP 952/2007 -:3:- court below on 29.2.2008. C.R.P is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-