IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 /27TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1065 of 2006(D) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/10/2006 IN EP 697/04 IN OS.374/2002 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.1: ------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. PYLOTH, THATHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLUR VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER & JUDGMENT DEBTOR NO.2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSE, S/O. RAPPAI, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, KALLUR VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ROSY, AGED 45 YERS, W/O. GEORGE, THATHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALLUR VILLAGE, DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.3708 OF 2006 IN C.R.P. NO.1065 OF 2006 DISMISSED 17/1/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1065 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Irinjalakkuda in E.P.697/04 in O.S.374/02. The execution petition is filed for realisation of an amount of Rs.54,297/- plus interest plus costs. No documents were produced before the Court to prove the means of the judgment debtor. According to the decree holder the judgment debtor is a contractor by profession and is having a monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and that he had celebrated the marriage of his daughter by spending an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. On the other hand the judgment debtor would contend that he is not a contractor at all and he is only having four cents of property with a house therein and that the said property is mortgaged to a co-operative bank and therefore he is not in a position to raise the amount through the realisable assets. He has also contended that he is a coolie worker who is having backache and is not in a position to do the work also. The Court below also found that there is no CRP NO. 1065 of 2006 -:2:- documentary evidence. The Court below also held that the judgment debtor has not produced any document to show regarding the mortgage to the co-operative bank and further that the judgment debtor has not produced any prescriptions issued for the purpose of treatment. I feel an opportunity has to be given for the said purpose. It is incumbent upon the Court when civil liberty of a person is affected to have acceptable evidence. Therefore I set aside the order under challenge, remit the case back to the Court below for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunities to the judgment debtor as well as the decree holder to prove their respective contentions by adducing documentary as well as oral evidence. Till that time the arrest warrant shall not be executed. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 18.2.2008. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-