IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 1492 of 2004() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2004 IN EP.1347/2003 IN OS.588/2002 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.3: --------------------------------------- HARIDAS .K.K. S/O.KUMARAN, KOMBARA HOUSE MARAVALASSERY VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ RESPONDENTS DECREE HOLDER: --------------------------- DHANAMITHRA KURIES (P) LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 3988 OF 2004 IN C.R.P. NO.1492 OF 2004. DISMISSED 8.2.2008 Sd/-(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 1492 OF 2004 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is filed by the third judgment debtor challenging the order dated 30.11.2004 in E.P. No.1347 of 2003 in O.S. No.588 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Munsiff,s Court Irinjalakkuda. By the impugned order, the execution court held that the revision petitioner had sufficient means to pay off the decree debt or a substantial portion thereof and that he has wilfully neglected to pay the same. The execution court, therefore, ordered to detain the petitioner in civil prison. 2. The decree holder sought execution of an amount of Rs.56,036/-. The revision petitioner contended that he has no sufficient means to pay the decree debt. In support of the contentions raised, PW.1 was examined on the side of the decree holder and Ext.A1 was marked. The revision petitioner/ third judgment debtor was examined as DW.1. Ext.A1 is the asset and liability statement in respect of the revision petitioner. It is seen from Ext.A1 that the revision petitioner has an annual income of C.R.P. NO.1492/2004 2 Rs.48,000/-. The execution of Ext.A1 is disputed by the revision petitioner. The court below on a comparison of the signature contained in Ext.A1 with the admitted signature of the revision petitioner found that Ext.A1 was executed by the revision petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits that Ext.A1 will not go to show that the revision petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree amount or a substantial portion thereof. Ext.A1 is dated 29.8.2000 whereas the decree was passed on 7.8.2002. So, according to the learned counsel, there is no evidence to prove that since the date of the decree, the revision petitioner had the means to pay the decree debt or a substantial portion thereof and that he has refused or neglected to pay the same. Counsel further submits that apart from Ext.A1, there is no other evidence to substantiate the contention of the decree holder. 4. Heard both sides. Ext.A1 document shows that the revision petitioner/third judgment debtor was earning an annual income of Rs.48,000/- as on 2000. It is for the revision petitioner to prove that he is not a man of means subsequent to the passing of the decree in the light of Ext.A1. Having failed to discharge the burden, the conclusion arrived at C.R.P. NO.1492/2004 3 by the court below that the revision petitioner who had ability to pay the decree debt or a substantial portion thereof wilfully neglected and refused to pay the same requires no interference in this revision. The findings entered purely on the basis of the evidence on record are just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ C.R.P. NO.1492/2004 4 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO.1492/2004 O R D E R 8TH FEBRUARY, 2008