IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5018 of 2010(O) ------------------------- ARC.1603/2004 of SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER: --------------- R.MURALIDHARAN, S/O.N.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, PADINJAREKKAD, PATTANCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- THATHAMANGALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.P 502, THATHAMANGALAM CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY the PETITIONER IN E.P.No.132 OF 2007 OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P2 : ORDER DTD. 18-09-08 OF THE COURT OF SUB ORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD IN E.P.No.132 OF 2007 EXHIBIT P3 : RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT'S BANK IN RELATION TO THE PAYMENTS. EXHIBIT P4 : ORDER DTD.15-01-2009 IN E.P.No.132 OF 2007 IN A.R.C.No.1603 OF 2004 OF the COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PALAKKAD RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL True Copy P.A to Judge THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No. 5018 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.132 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad against whom there is an award passed by the Joint Registrar in accordance with the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act is before this court challenging the order for issue of warrant against him on the finding that in spite of having sufficient means he has willfully failed to pay the amount due under the Award. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the award itself is not acceptable in that it is not passed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies as per proceedings dated 01-10-2009. It is also the contention of learned counsel that there is no sufficient evidence to show that petitioner has sufficient means from the landed properties sufficient to discharge liability under the award. Learned counsel for respondent contends that executing court cannot go behind the award and there is sufficient evidence to show that petitioner in spite of being affluent enough has refused to pay the amount due under the Award. 2. So far as the first contention based on proceeding of the W.P.C.No.5018 of 2010 : 2 : Registrar of Co-operative Societies is concerned, I am inclined to accept the contention of learned counsel for respondent that it is not within the jurisdiction of the executing court to decide whether Award was passed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the said authority. This is not a case of the authority which passed the award not having the inherent jurisdiction to pass the award. If petitioner has grievance against the award that has to be challenged in the proper forum as provided under law. 3. So far as finding regarding means is concerned, it is seen from the order under challenge that there was an earlier finding against petitioner which was challenged in this court in W.P.C.No.30668 of 2008 and this court in judgment dated 17-11- 2008 directed that payments already made by petitioner towards the decree debt itself would show that he has sufficient means but, it was also observed that if at all there was any contention that he ceased to have means after 04-09-2008 it was for him to prove that. So far as means after 04-09-2008 is concerned, respondent has produced Exts.A1 and A2 dated 03-11-2009 and 29-10-2009, letters issued by the Village Officer concerned stating the extent of land belonging to the petitioner. Evidence on record shows that petitioner has landed properties. It has also come in evidence that petitioner is running a rice mill. No contra evidence is produced by W.P.C.No.5018 of 2010 : 3 : the petitioner. This court in Kuppuswami Vs. P G Menon (1992 (2) KLT 203) has held that it is not necessary that the decree holder has to prove details of all source of income of judgment debtor. Executing court was correct in holding that petitioner having sufficient means neglected and refused to pay the amount due under the decree. As such the order does not require interference. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-