IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 25695 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.62/08 IN OS.49/1998 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.RASHEED, MANITHUNGAL HOUSE, EDAVETTY KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.V.MICHAEL, KUZHIPPALLIL HOUSE, MUTHALKODAM KARA, KARIKODE VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.25695/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR IN ANSWER TO THE RULE 37 NOTICE DATED 16.3.2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF DEPOSITION OF THE DECREE HOLDER AS PW1 DATED 6.8.2009. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, THODUPUZHA IN E.P.NO.62/2008 IN O.S.NO.49/1998 DATED 10.8.2009. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.25695 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.62 of 2008 in O.S.No.49 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thoudpuzha. Respondent is the decree holder. Decree executed was passed in a suit for money. Negativing the objections canvassed by the petitioner/judgment debtor that he has no means, warrant was ordered against him. Ext.P3 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor sought indulgence of this Court for an opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate his case that he has no means. It is submitted WPC.25695/09 2 that pursuant to the direction given by this Court, he has remitted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the decree debt. Perusing Ext.P3 order, it is seen that the decree holder alone gave evidence in the proceedings and there was no evidence by the judgment debtor. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was not provided with an opportunity to lead evidence, which, however, is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find an opportunity can be extended to the judgment debtor to lead evidence subject to the condition of his depositing an amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) within a period of one month towards the decree debt. The deposit, if any, made by the judgment debtor pursuant to orders given by this Court, will not be given any weight in considering the plea of no means canvassed by him. In case, the deposit is made within the time limit fixed, the court below shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence to substantiate his plea of means. Whatever deposit made by the judgment debtor shall WPC.25695/09 3 be released to the decree holder. The execution court is directed to dispose the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. In case the deposit is not made within the time fixed, the court below shall proceed with the execution of warrant. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp