IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 3241 OF 2010(O) --------------------------------------- OS.902/2003 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- DEVADAS, S/O.KOCHU CHERUKKAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KALLAZHATHU PADINJATTATHIL, KANNIMELTHERRY, KILIKKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- RAJENDRAN, S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, PILLAI VEEDU, VADAKKATHIL, ULIYAKKOVIL CHERRY, KULLAM EAST VILLAGE,FROM DEVI PRASADAM, THOLIKKODU WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.P. NO.20 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.902 OF 2003 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.3241 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P1, order is under challenge in this Writ Petition at the instance of the judgment debtor. He has suffered a decree for realisation of money. Respondent filed E.P. No.20 of 2009 for realisation of Rs.54,000/- and odd. He also sought for issue of warrant of arrest against petitioner alleging that in spite of having sufficient means he has wilfully refused to discharge the decree debt. Respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and testified to his case. Petitioner gave contra evidence as D.W.1 and proved Ext.B1 series, medical bills. It came out in the evidence of P.W.1 that petitioner was running a financial institution and owned an Autorikshaw. Executing court found sufficient means with the petitioner and he wilfully failed to pay the decree debt. Accordingly learned Munsiff issued Ext.P1, order. 2. When this matter came up for admission on 01.02.2010 this Court ordered notice and granted interim stay of Ext.P1, order on condition of petitioner depositing Rs.30,000/- in the executing court within one month from that day. That condition has not been W.P(C) No.3241 of 2010 -: 2 :- complied with. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner. 3. It is true that it is for the decree holder to prove that the judgment debtor, in spite of having sufficient means has wilfully failed to discharge the decree debt and satisfy the conditions under Section 51(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court in Kuppuswamy v. P.G. Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) has held that it is not as if the decree holder is bound to give evidence in respect of each and every details and when prima facie evidence regarding means of judgment debtor is adduced it is for the judgment debtor to adduce contra evidence. In this case sufficient evidence has been adduced by the respondent as P.W.1. Evidence of D.W.1 was not found to be sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the evidence of P.W.1. Having gone through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with the same. Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv