IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 396 of 2005 --------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.133/04 IN EP.280/03 IN OS.975/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ) REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YACOB, S/O. KALLIYATH PARAMBIL CHUMMARU, THRIKKUR VILLAGE, DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MERCY, W/O. MECHERY DAVIS, MECHIRA DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.FRANCO T.J. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 04/03/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.R.P.No. 396 of 2005 ORDER ON I.A.NOS.1131 & 2062 OF 2005 IN C.R.P.No. 396 of 2005 DISMISSED. 04.03.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. No. 396 OF 2005 ................................................................................... Dated this the 4th March, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent-decree holder put the decree for money in execution and sought to sell the house and compound belonging to the petitioner in court auction. The property has an extent of 4.5 cents. There is a house with three bed rooms having about 1000 Sq.feet plinth area in the property. The petitioner filed E.A.No. 133 of 2004 claiming benefits of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He contended that he is a labourer and therefore his house and compound is not liable to be sold in court auction. 2. The respondent disputed the claim of the petitioner that he is a labourer. It was contended by her that the petitioner is a business man. Before the court below, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and the respondent was examined as R.W.1. At the time of examination of R.W.1, three affidavits sworn to by the petitioner in the same suit at the earlier stage were marked as Exts.B1 to B3. Though the petitioner got an opportunity to cross examine the respondent, no questions were put to her touching upon the contents of Exts. B1 to B3. In Exts. B1 to B3, the petitioner has described himself as a business man. The court relied on the affidavits and held that the case of the petitioner that he is a labourer cannot be accepted. 3. In the suit, in which the Execution Petition is filed, the petitioner had occasion to file affidavits, in which he stated that he is a business man. He is fully aware of the said state of affairs. When he filed the present affidavit, the petitioner was duty bound to explain as to how he got himself transformed to labourer from business man. He has not offered any explanation in the present affidavit. When the respondent in her evidence pointed out these facts and produced the affidavits sworn to by the petitioner, the petitioner got a second opportunity to explain the position by putting necessary C.R.P. No. 396 OF 2005 2 questions in the cross examination. He did not do so. That means, he cannot be heard to contend that he is a labourer. 4. A question was put to P.W.1 as to the nature of the residential house in the property. It has come out in evidence that the petitioner is residing in a reasonably good house. The respondent-decree holder even offered to purchase the house for a sum of Rs. Five lakhs . That means, the property is valuable and that the petitioner is not in such a financially weak position as he contends. 5. It is submitted that the decree amount sought to be realised is less than Rs.50,000/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, three months' time is granted to the petitioner to pay the decree amount. The Execution Petition shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited by the petitioner before the court below, as directed by this court. It is made clear that the amount in deposit shall be treated as payment towards the decree amount. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk