IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 334 of 2008(G) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/02/2008 IN EP 1182/04 IN OS.856/1996 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------------------------------------- RAJAGOPAL P.S., S/O. SANKARA NARAYANAN, PADINJARETHALAKAL HOUSE, LAKSHMI NIWAS, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------------------- M/S. THRISSIVA KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., RICE BAZAR, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 334 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff in E.P.1182/04 in O.S.856/96. By the said order the Court below has found the means of the judgment debtor. The learned counsel had persuasively submitted before me that one property which is stated to be in possession as per Ext.A1 has been sold by him under Exts.X1 and X2. So far as the room in Swaraj round is concerned it is submitted that it is under hypothecation to the K.F.C. and even the rent is collected by them and therefore he is unable to raise the amount by pledging the property or by selling the property. Then it is contended by him that the house where he resides belongs to the wife and therefore he cannot make use of that for making the fund. The Court below found regarding the sale of property mentioned in Ext.A1 by Exts.X1 and X2. I feel if the property which is situated in the Swaraj round is hypothecated there will be difficulty for the person to raise funds. So the said argument deserves consideration. CRP NO. 334 of 2008 -:2:- 2. Similarly, if the house belongs to the wife one cannot insist the wife to sell the house for discharging the debt of the judgment debtor. That is also a point which requires consideration. Mere suggestions in cross- examination is not sufficient to hold regarding the plea of means. Therefore I think the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Courts below. Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for fresh consideration enabling the revision petitioner to produce documentary evidence to show that he has mortgaged the property with K.F.C. and that the rent is drawn by them. He can also file an affidavit to the effect that the building where he resides is belonging to his wife and it is for the other side to disprove it. But in order to give an opportunity I direct him to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- by 31.5.2008. Since I am disposing of the matter at the admission stage itself the Court below is directed to give notice to the decree holder. If the amount of Rs.20,000/- is no deposited on or before 31.5.2008, the benefit conferred CRP NO. 334 of 2008 -:3:- on him will stand cancelled. Since I have set aside the order, the Court below is directed not to issue warrant of arrest until further findings are entered into. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-