IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8294 of 2008(K) ------------------------- E.A.51/08 IN E.P.528/03 IN OS.498/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SHEIK MUSTHAFA, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED, ATTAYAMPATHY, MUTHALAMADA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.A.PREMAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------- ARUMUGHAN, S/O. NANJAPPA KOUNDER, MOOVULAKAPUDUR, MUTHALAMADA AMSOM, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 8294 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order of the Munsiff, Chittur in EA 51/08 in EP 528/03 in OS 498/02. 2. A brief history of the case is absolutely necessary for appreciating the matter. Earlier, there was an order whereby the Munsiff found that the judgment debtor has means and therefore ordered arrest. Thereafter a prayer was made that the judgment debtor will deposit the amount within one month and till then he may not be arrested. The court believed the same and gave a direction to the court below not to execute warrant of arrest for a period of one month. When the matter went back again a pleading is raised that he has no means and is a heart patient. This court elaborately considered these aspects in the judgment dated 28th November, 2007 in WPC No. 35124/07 and held that there cannot be any interference with the order of the learned Munsiff. Thereafter it appears that he knocked at the doors of the Kerala State Farmers' Debt Relief Commission. He also dragged this matter with the WPC NO 8294/08 2 decree holder as a party and attempted to obtain a stay of the same, which was rightly declined by the Commission stating that the matter has to be considered by the court where it is pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits before me that his client must be given an opportunity to show the change of circumstances to prove that he is not having any means. It is only on the basis of a discussion made by me in the previous judgment where I discussed it for the purpose of showing that the pleading of means once confirmed cannot be altered unless there is a change of circumstances pleaded and proved by the party. At the eleventh hour ultimate attempt is being made to drag in that point also. I have no hesitation to hold that there is absolutely no bona fide and the intention of the writ petitioner is only to evade payment and that too willfully. I do not find any error committed by the learned Munisff in passing the order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 8294/08 3 WPC NO 8294/08 4 WPC NO 8294/08 5