IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2008 / 9TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 82 of 2008 ---------------------------- OS.391/2004 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT,THODUPUZHA .................................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.1/DEFENDANT NO.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.A.RAVEENDRAN, S/O ACHUTHAN, KONNAYATH(H), EDAD, P.O.MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.TOMY SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER NAD J.D NO.2&3/PLFFS.AND DEFFS.2&3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S CENTURY HIRE PURCHASE, MUVATTUPUZHA, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, K.J.ANTONY, S/O JOSEPH, KAVUMPURATHU HOUSE, ELANGAVAM KARA, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. 2. K.N.KRISHNADAS, S/O NARAYANAN, KADUKUMACKAL(H), ELAPPILLY P.O., MOOLAMATTOM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. TOMY JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PANNIMATTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 82 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Thodupuzha in E.P.89/06 in O.S.391/04. The Court below found that the first defendant is having landed property of 22 cents and he is cultivating and there is sufficient income and therefore ordered arrest of the first judgment debtor. The Court also found that the 2nd judgment debtor's income is not proved and therefore refused to order arrest against him. It is contended by the revision petitioner that in the very same suit the property has been attached at the stage of the pendency of the suit. Or in other words there was an attachment before judgment. It is true if one is having property and there is realisable asset it can be found that there is means in order to arrest. But when the very same property is attached in the very same suit there is a bar cast on the judgment debtor in dealing with the property so as to raise the funds. 22 cents of land which is a residential area however cultivated will not fetch an income so as to give CRP NO. 82 of 2008 -:2:- an amount of more than Rs.1 lakh at one stretch. Therefore the finding of the Court below that there is sufficient income cannot be accepted. Since there is also a property under attachment if the decree holder so desires may proceed against that property for realisation of the decree debt. I disagree with the finding of the learned Munsiff that there is sufficient means and therefore the order under challenge is set aside with liberty to the decree holder to proceed against the property as permissible under law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-