IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 45 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2007 IN EP 5/2007. IN OS.30/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, IDUKKI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------- MOHANAN, KIZHAKKEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THALLAKKANAM, KANJIKUZHY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SRI.ANIL GEORGE SMT.V.A.SARITHA RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER -------------------------- A.R.MOHANAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, AMBIYIL HOUSE, THALLAKANAM, KANJIKUZHY P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA 127/08 IN CRP 45/08 DISMISSED 15.1.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 45 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Idukki in E.P. 5/07 in O.S. 30/02. The plaintiff has obtained a decree against the defendant for realisaiton of Rs.10,000/- with interest. The defendant namely the judgment debtor has pleaded no means. PWs 1, 2 & 3 and DW1 were examined. It is the case of the decree holder that the judgment debtor is having business and is running a telephone booth as well as a bakery having a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. PW2 has submitted his evidence by stating that DW1, namely the judgment debtor, is having business and he had seen him conducting the business. Against that evidence, DW1 has tendered and admitted that he is having a business in Coco for the last three years. The factum that the business is run by the judgment debtor is admitted by him. So what has to be considered is the preponderance of possibilities and whose evidence is entitled to more weight. C.R.P. No. 45/08 2 2. Since the court below had the opportunity to see the persons and had appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective therefore, I do not want to interfere with the finding of means rendered in this case. That does not mean that the judgment debtor has to be sent straight away to jail. If he has got the willingness to discharge the amount and considering the fact that there is some difficulty in making the payment, I direct him to wipe off the liability by making the payment in five monthly equal instalments commencing from 15.2.08. If he commits default of the first instalment and thereafter of two consecutive instalments, the benefits conferred on him will stand cancelled and the decree holder can request the court to arrest him and detain him in civil prison in execution of the decree. Since such an opportunity is given to the judgment debtor, the order of arrest shall not be implemented unless there is violation of the conditions mentioned in the order. The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps C.R.P. No. 45/08 3