IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 89 of 2010() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/01/2010 IN EP.171/2006 IN OS.219/1999 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------- GANGADHARAN VINOD, PATTATHUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER & 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------- 1. SASIDHARAN PILLAI, BHASKARA VILASOM, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, B.MOHANAN PILLAI, BHASKARAN VILASOM, EDAYADITHARA WARD, POOTHAKULAM, PARAVOOR. 2. MAYA VINOD, PATTATHUVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.89/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP. NO.171/06 IN OS. 219/99 DTD. 14.1.2010 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss P. BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------- C.R.P.No.89 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 O R D E R Order dated 14.1.2010 in E.P.171/10 in O.S.219/99 of Sub Court, Kollam is under challenge. 2. It appears that the petitioner suffered an exparte decree and decree was put in execution. Notice was issued. The judgment debtor entered appearance and pleaded no means. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order is cryptic and no reasons have been given as to issue warrant. There is no finding regarding means of judgment debtor. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree amount which comes to more than Rs.1,00,000/- as on date. C.R.P No.89/10 2 5. It is not disputed that the judgment debtor entered appearance, but contended that he has no means to pay the decree debt. The order issuing warrant does not disclose as to how the court arrived at the conclusion that judgment debtor has means to pay. There is no reference to any evidence adduced by the decree holder to prove the means. The court below at least should have referred to the available evidence. 6. The impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above. Parties are given opportunity to adduce further evidence if they so choose and the same shall be disposed of within four weeks thereafter. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. Sou.