IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 715 of 2006() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/08/2006 IN EP. 19 /2003 IN OS.115/2001 of WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- K.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT NEAR CIVIL COURTS, THALASSERY AMSOM, VADIKKAKAM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KADATHILTHAZHE JUMA MASJID COMMITTEE MENAPRAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT A.K.MUSTHAFA, S/O.MOOSA HAJI, "ALTHAYIF", MENAPRAM P.O., CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. TREASURER K.P.YOUSEF, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, KARINTHOLKUNI VEEDU, MENAPRAM P.O., CHOKLI, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADDL.R3. SECRETARY, KERALA ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND, BAR COUNCIL BUILDINGS, ERNAKULAM (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 13/6/2007 ON CRP NO. 715/2006) ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN FOR ADDL.R.3. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR ADDL.R6 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NOS.2700/2006 & 1430/2007 IN C.R.P. 715/2006 DISMISSED 19/2/2010 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. SD/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ C.R.P.No. 715 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 O R D E R Pius C.Kuriakose, J. Under challenge in this revision is an order of the Execution Court directing arrest of the revision petitioner finding that in spite of sufficient means to pay the decree debt or a substantial portion of the same, he has willfully neglected to make the payment. 2. On admitting this revision petition on 18/9/2006, this court granted interim stay of execution which has been extended from time to time. On 13/6/2007, this court suo motu impleaded the Secretary of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee as additional third respondent in the CRP and today we have heard the submissions of Sri.Cibi Thomas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan, learned counsel for the additional third respondent and also Sri.R.Surendran, learned counsel for the decree holder. CRP.No.716/2006 2 3. Even though Sri.Cibi Thomas addressed us elaborately and strained very much, having gone through the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity and much less any jurisdictional infirmity about the findings entered by the learned Wakf Tribunal. The revision petitioner is a senor advocate of Thalassery Bar and his defence to the prayer in the E.P. for personal execution was that currently he has only a very few cases and he is getting only a paltry amount. But, then the means of the revision petitioner to pay the decree debt in a lump or a substantial portion of the decree debt was sought to be proved by examining PW1. To the oral evidence adduced by PW1- the President of the decree holder-Juma Masjid Committee the revision petitioner did not adduce any counter evidence. In other words, the revision petitioner did not have the courage to offer himself for cross examination by the counsel for the decree holder. According to us, this is a situation which would justify drawal of adverse interference against the revision petitioner. As rightly noticed by the Wakf Tribunal, the question as to what is the monthly income derived by the revision petitioner is an aspect capable of being proved by documents at the revision CRP.No.716/2006 3 petitioner's own disposal. Having not adduced any evidence, the petitioner is not entitled to blame the court below for having entered the findings presently entered in the impugned order. 4. Sri.Vinod Singh Cheriyan submitted that the revision petitioner is yet to request the Kerala Bar Council for removal of his name from the Roles of the Bar Council. This means that the revision petitioner continues to be a practising lawyer. According to the learned counsel, there is no guarantee that even when the revision petitioner's name is removed from the Roles of the Bar council, he will be eligible for amounts from the Advocates Welfare Fund since pendency of any disciplinary proceedings against an advocate can be good reason for denying benefit from the Trust Fund to him. Whatever that be, as we do not find any infirmity about the impugned order, we confirm the same and dismiss the CRP. 5. In view of th statement filed by the Advocate Welfare Fund Trustee Committee before this court, we direct the Secretary of the Kerala Advocate Welfare Fund Trustee Committee not to release amounts, if any, which may be due to the revision petitioner from the Advocate Welfare Funds without CRP.No.716/2006 4 obtaining specific orders in that regard either from the Execution Court or from this court. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM , JUDGE dpk