IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.NO. 577 OF 2005() --------------------- {IN E.P.NO.4/2004 IN OS.1601/2001 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR. ------------------------------------------------ G.OPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, USHAMANDIRAM, KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.A.RASHID SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER. --------------------------------------- STATE BANK OF INDIA, P.B.BRANCH, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.NO. 577 OF 2005 :: :: ORDER ON I.A.No.1527/05 IN CRP No.577/05 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 24.2.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P.No.577 of 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010. O R D E R Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.1601/01 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. The decree being executed is one passed in a suit for money, and the respondent is the decree holder. Notice issued to the petitioner/judgment debtor under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure {for short "the Code"} to show cause because why he should not be detained in civil prison, was responded by filing objections setting forth a plea of 'no means'. The decree holder bank, through one of its officers gave evidence that petitioner is getting more than Rs.70,000/- employed as Additional Director of the Director of Public Relations and that his plea of 'no means' is C.R.P.No.577 of 2005 :: 2 :: unworthy of acceptance. No counter evidence was let in by the judgment debtor. The learned Munsiff, on the materials placed, ordered for issuing warrant against the petitioner/judgment debtor. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in the revision. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner had contended in his objections that he had been dismissed from service and not possessed of any means to discharge the decree debt. No documentary evidence was let in by the decree holder to disprove the objections raised by him and in that backdrop the warrant ordered by the court was not proper and correct is the submission of the C.R.P.No.577 of 2005 :: 3 :: counsel. Learned counsel urged for setting aside the order directing issue of warrant and providing an opportunity to the petitioner/judgment debtor to lead evidence to substantiate his objections. 4. I have perused the order passed by the court below. It is seen that the order was passed on the materials placed in the enquiry conducted over the objections canvassed by the judgment debtor raising the plea of no means. Once the decree holder has let in evidence prima facie showing that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficinet means, the court was justified in ordering warrant against the judgment debtor where he had failed to substantiate his objections. Only an initial burden is cast on the decree holder to show that the plea of no means C.R.P.No.577 of 2005 :: 4 :: canvassed by the judgment debtor is unworthy of merit and when such evidence is let in, the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to establish his plea of 'no means'. No circumstance has been brought to my notice why the judgment debtor refrained from leading evidence to substantiate his objections raised against the personal execution of the decree. There is no infirmity, leave alone jurisdictional infirmity, in the order of the court below. The revision lacks merit, and is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy//