IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 1045 of 2007() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/08/2007 IN EP 213/2005 IN OS.547/1999 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ---------------------------- SRI. A.S.PRABHAKARAN, S/O SANKARA MANNADIAR, AGED 82 YEARS, EX-SERVICE MAN, ERATTU HOUSE, PANANTHODI, POLPULLY P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER -------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, CHITTUR BRANCH, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 1045 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Principal Munsiff, Palakkad in E.P.213/05 in O.S.547/99. The decree holder, Bank had obtained a decree for Rs.42,296/- with interest. The respondent who is a former member of the army service is having a pension of Rs.2,498/-. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner strongly contends before me that the present revision petitioner is aged more than 80 and with the pension available he is not even able to make both ends meet and therefore the finding of the Court below that the said amount is sufficient to discharge the decree debt and that he has the means to pay is incorrect. 2. The learned counsel for the decree holder would submit the entire picture is not disclosed from the order and therefore it is desirable that the matter is considered afresh. It is true that in order to have a finding on the means there is a provision under Section 51 CPC which takes in the salary CRP NO. 1045 of 2007 -:2:- available for attachment under Section 60 as the means. Suppose a person is aged 80 plus and he is having ailment and there are materials to show the factum of expenses for treatment is there, then the matter requires reconsideration. The Court has to analyze the evidence and find out the means to wipe off the decree debt. 3. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the learned Munsiff and direct the Court below to consider the matter afresh after permitting both parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and if the revision petitioner does not adduce evidence the Court can certainly draw an adverse inference if there are positive convincing materials adduced by the decree holder in the case which requires rebuttal. The parties are directed to appear before the Court below on 18.2.2008. With this observation the C.R.P. is disposed of. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-