IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No.847 of 2008 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/10/2008 IN EP.573/2005 IN OS.587/2004 of PRL.M.C., IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/4th JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------------------------- PAUL S/O. KACHAPILLY PAULY, IRINJALAKUDA DESOM P.O. MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------- MINERVA KURIES INDIA (P) LIMITED, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA P.O. THRISSUR DT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C. R. P No.847 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 ORDER The petitioner is the fourth judgment debtor in E.P.573/05 in O.S.587/04 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The application of the decree holder for personal execution of the money decree in the suit as against judgment debtors 3 and 4, was resisted by the petitioner contending that he has no means to pay off the decree debt either in lump or in substantial instalments thereof. The execution court conducted an enquiry into means of judgment debtors 3 and 4 wherein the decree holder and the petitioner/fourth judgment debtor gave evidence respectively as PW1 and RW1. The decree holder produced Ext.A1 to prove the means of third judgment debtor and to prove the means of the fourth judgment debtor, he produced Ext.A2 kuri security C. R. P No.847 of 2008 -2- application submitted by the principal debtor along with the forms duly filled up by the sureties furnishing security to draw the kuri amount. From Ext.A2 it could be seen that the fourth judgment debtor is the owner of Pauly Medicals at Irinjalakuda. The said medicals according to the decree holder is opposite to Mareena Hospital at Tana in Irinjalakuda and the petitioner/fourth judgment debtor is getting a monthly income of Rs.20,000/- therefrom. According to the petitioner/fourth judgment debtor his father is the owner of “Pauly Medicals”. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the burden to establish that Pauly Medicals is run by the father and not by the petitioner/fourth judgment debtor is not on the petitioner/ fourth judgment debtor, but on the decree holder who has sought for personal execution against the petitioner. It is true, that the C. R. P No.847 of 2008 -3- burden would have been on the decree holder had there not been Ext.A2 wherein the petitioner has admitted that Pauly Medicals belongs to him. No attempt has been made by the petitioner to get over the admission that has been made in Ext.A2 that he is the owner of Pauly Medicals. In the circumstances, it was up to the petitioner himself to establish that Pauly Medicals is not being run by him or owned by him and that he is not getting income therefrom. The finding of the court below, in the circumstances, cannot be faulted. There is no merit in this revision. In the result, I dismiss this C.R.P. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-