IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 39222 of 2003(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.K.REMANAN, PADOOVINKAL HOUSE, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O., PANAVALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF/DECREE HOLDER :- --------------------------------------------------------------------- THE FEDERAL BANK LTD., ALUVA HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT ALUVA AND HAVING ONE OF ITS BRANCHES AT POOCHAKKAL, THYCATTUSSERI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.JOSE CYRIAC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jvt WP(C).No. 39222 of 2003 APPENDIX Petitioner's Exhibits :- Ext.P1 :- Copy of medical certificate dated 18.10.2001 issued from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Ext.P2 :- Copy of medical certificate dated 14.7.2003 issued by the Welcare Hospital, Cochin. Ext.P3 :- Copy of order dated 21.11.2003 of the Sub Court, Cherthala in E.P.No.39 of 1998 in O.S.No.211 of 1995. Respondent's Exhibits :- NIL //True Copy// P.A. to Judge N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.39222 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December 2010 J U D G M E N T The sole Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.39/98 of Sub Court, Cherthala is the petitioner herein. The decree was passed against him for a sum of Rs.17,161/- and also the interest thereon. The amount due from him while E.P.39/98 was filed was stated to be more than Rs.25,000/-. In E.P.39/98, the officer of the bank was examined as PW1 and one official of the LIC as PW2. The certificate stated to have been issued by the officer of the LIC was marked before the executing court as Ext.P2. Based on that it was contended by the Decree Holder that the petitioner herein is an LIC Agent. Since the executing court found no reason to disbelieve Pws.1 and 2 examined in the E.P., it was held that the Judgment Debtor has means to pay the decree W.P.(C) No.39222 of 2003 -: 2 :- amount and hence warrant of arrest was issued against him. 2. The petitioner contends that he is not an LIC Agent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having some ailments and is not having sufficient means to pay the decree amount. 3. Though, Ext.P2 filed in the E.P. was proved through PW2, there is no material to hold what actually was the amount, the petitioner was getting by doing LIC business, as commission agent or otherwise. In other words, there is no acceptable evidence to show that the judgment debtor has means to pay the decree amount. Unless the decree holder proves that the judgment debtor has got means to pay the decree amount, warrant of arrest cannot be issued. Therefore, Ext.P3 order cannot be sustained. It is set aside. But the decree holder is given liberty to adduce evidence to prove the means of the judgment debtor for which if advised, the decree holder can call for the records from the office of the LIC or adduce any W.P.(C) No.39222 of 2003 -: 3 :- other evidence. Since it is a very old matter, the executing court will dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt