IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 202 of 2008(E) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 27/11/2007 IN E.P.503/2005 IN OS.417/1998 AND E.P.502/2005 IN O.S.412/1998 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR : ------------------------------------------------------------------ RAJA PAUL, S/O.ARIMBOOR MANI, PADINJARE ANGADI, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.CHINNAN SRI.SUSAL A.CHINNAN RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER : ------------------------------------------------ SHAJI JACOB, S/O.KUTHUR JACOB, CHIRALAYAM DESOM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008 ALONG WITH CRP NO.527/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 202 of 2008(E) ORDER ON I.A.582 OF 2008 IN C.R.P.NO.202 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 15.07.2008 SD/-, M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP.Nos. 202 & 527 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.417 of 1998 and O.S.412 of 1998 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. CRP 202 of 2008 is filed challenging the order that petitioner/judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt in E.P.502 of 2005 of O.S.412 of 1998. In that revision, respondent appeared through Adv.P.Ramachandran. The order of arrest in E.P.502 and 503 of 2005 were originally challenged in CRP 202 of 2008. When that CRP was partly heard and it was pointed out that petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of arrest in two execution petitions in one CRP and CRP 527 of 2008 was filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent took notice for the decree holder, respondent in that revision also. Both the revisions were heard together. 3. The impugned order in both the revision petitions are similar. They show that learned Munsiff has not analysed the evidence adduced by decree holder or judgment debtor. Instead, what is stated in both the orders is that on a perusal of oral CRP 202 & 527/08 2 testimony of PW1 and RW1 and Exts.A1 and A2, it is found that judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. It does not show what portion of the evidence of PW1 or RW1 establish the means. It is pointed out that Ext.A1 is the judgment in the suit and Ext.A2, a notice which came into existence before the institution of the suit and marked as Ext.A5 in the suit. There is no specific finding based on the evidence. In such circumstances, both the impugned orders are set aside. 4. Learned Munsiff is directed to reconsider the question of sufficient means of the petitioner in the light of the evidence on record. Parties are also permitted to adduce further evidence. Executing court is directed to dispose the execution petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-