IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRP.No. 859 of 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2008 IN EP 172/2007 IN OS.180/2004 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGEMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------- K.VASUDEVAN, PERUMPUZHA VADAKKATHIL, PUTHUKKADU MURI, CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB SMT.NISHA JOHN RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------- V.MUHAMMED KUNJU, KIZHAKKADATHU VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, MUKUNDAPURAM P.O., CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH SRI.P.A.SALEEM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A.NO.2743/2008 IN C.R.P.NO.859/2008 DISMISSED 6/3/2009 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ C.R.P. NO. 859 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th March, 2009 O R D E R The judgment debtor in E.P.No.172 of 2007 in O.S.No.180 of 2004, on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally, challenges the order dated 15.11.2008, by which the court below rejected the plea of no means raised by the petitioner. 2. The Execution Petition was filed for realisation of the decree amount by arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The petitioner pleaded no means. He contended that he owns only seven cents of land. He also contended that being an agricultural labourer, his property is not liable to be attached and sold. He also contended that he has no other income or assets and, therefore, he cannot be arrested and detained in civil prison. No evidence was adduced either by the decree holder or by the judgment debtor. No documents were also produced. The court below held that the judgment debtor failed to prove that he has no sufficient means to satisfy the decree debt. The burden of proof is on the decree holder to prove that the judgment debtor has sufficient means or has had, since the date of the decree, the means to pay the decree debt or a sufficient portion thereof and has refused or neglected to pay the C.R.P. NO.859 OF 2008 :: 2 :: decree debt. The court below was not justified in casting the burden of proof on the judgment debtor. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside. I do so. The court below shall dispose of the matter afresh, after affording an opportunity to adduce evidence to both parties. The court below shall dispose of the case in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/