IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 60 of 2008 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2007 IN EP.99/06 IN OPMV.3453/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. .................... REVISION PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASOKAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.THOLUR, THRISSUR. 2. BABU, S/O.DEVASSY, PAREKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.THOLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL, SRI.M.R.DHANIL. RESPONDENTS/ DECREE HOLDERS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. JOHNSON, S/O.KURIAKKU, COMBAN HOUSE, P.O.PERUVALLUR, VIA - PUVATHUR, THRISSUR. 2. SHYNI, W/O.JOHNSON, THOMBAN HOUSE, P.O.PERUVALLUR, VIA - PUVATHUR, THRISSUR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.60 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of January 2008 O R D E R This civil revision petition is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, whereby the learned Tribunal ordered arrest of the judgment debtors for realisation of the decree debt due under the award. The claim had arisen out of a pathetic death of a 3 year old child and an amount of Rs.2,09,500/- has been awarded as compensation. It is true that the prayer in the execution petition is for attachment and no claim is made for any arrest. Ultimately the court below found that the judgment debtors are having means and had ordered arrest of the judgment debtors. Learned counsel for the petitioners had taken me through the evidence of PW1. The evidence tendered by him in the cross examination would show that whatever he has stated is only hearsay and absolutely no piece of document is produced to show the means of the judgment debtors. It is true that the judgment debtors have not mounted the box to controvert the evidence tendered by PW1. Learned counsel also submitted that the judgment debtors had not been given an opportunity to contest the case at CRP 60/2008 -:2:- all. Therefore, I find that the order requires interference. Therefore, the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below with direction to both sides to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since I am disposing of the revision petition at the admission stage itself, the court below on appearance of the judgment debtors before it will fix a date for appearance of the decree holder and then dispose of the matter. Needless to say that the execution of the arrest warrant cannot be ordered till a decision is taken in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 18.2.2008. C.R.P is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-