IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 CRP.No. 585 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/06/2008 IN EP.536/2005 IN OS.1269/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGEMENT DEBTOR NO.2 ----------------------------------------------------- C.I.POULOSE, S/O.CHERUVATHEERU IPPOORU PENGAMUCK DESOM, KATTUKAMBAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL SRI.DOMINIC JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER & JUDGEMENT DEBTOR NO.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAPTHAMI KURIES & LOANS, KUNNAMKULAM. 2. C.I.BABY, S/O.CHERUVATHEERU IPPOORU PENGAMUCK DESOM, KATTUKAMBAL VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== C.R.P. No. 585 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008. ORDER The judgment debtor No.2 in E.P. No. 536 of 2005 in O.S.No. 1269 of 1997 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Chaakkad is the revision petitioner. The E.P amount was Rs.48,420/- which has now swelled into more than Rs.50,000/-. The decree holder alleged that the revision petitioner having sufficient means to pay the decree debt, had wilfully neglected to do so, that he owns 3.60 Ares of land inherited from his father and that after the institution of the suit, the revision petitioner had transferred a shop building belonging to him at Valancheri. The revision petitioner disputed the said allegations and reiterated that he does not have the means to pay the decree debt. 2. Except deposing before the court as PW1 in terms of the petition, the decree holder did not produce any reliable material to show that the revision petitioner had inherited 3.60 Ares of land from his father or that he had, after the institution of the suit, transferred a shop building allegedly belonging to him at Valancheri. The unsubstantiated ipse dixit of the decree holder was taken as evidence to prove the means by the courts below which as per the impugned C.R.P.NO. 585/2008 : 2: order dated 30.06.2008 directed the issue of arrest warrant against the revision petitioner. 3. I heard both sides. 4. In the light of the above self servicing evidence of the decree holder without any documentary proof the court below was not justified in ordering the issue of arrest warrant against the revision petitioner. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. However, I am inclined to give the decree holder an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his contention. Accordingly, the parties shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 28.10.2008. The decree holder may adduce acceptable evidence to prove his contention that the revision petitioner had the means to pay the decree debt and had refused or neglected to pay the same. This C.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv C.R.P.NO. 585/2008 : 3: