IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 CRP.No. 52 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2010 IN EP 173/2010 IN OS.1639/2001 of MUNSIFF COURT,CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------ SHAJUDHEEN,PROPRIETOR OF M/S COMPUTERS, MOTHER COMPLEX,S/O.ARAKKAVEETTL,MUHAMMADALI, TALIKULAM AMSOM DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------- KADER,AGED 63 YEARS,S/O.ARAVASSERY MOIDHEEN,TALIKULAM AMSOM DESOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.RAJIT FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.52 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of October, 2011 ORDER This civil revision is in challenge of the order dated 17.12.2010 in E.P.No.173 of 2010 in O.S.No.1639 of 2001 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad. Respondent obtained a money decree and sought personal execution against petitioner. Petitioner, it is not disputed filed an objection denying the statements in the execution petition as to his means and claimed that he has no means to pay the decree amount. Executing court passed the impugned order on 17.12.2010 that there is no payment made by the petitioner, means of petitioner is proved by affidavit and ordered to issue arrest warrant against him. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that notwithstanding the objection preferred by petitioner, no evidence was adduced by the respondent to show that petitioner has the means. 3. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order. It is also contended that petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of his claim that he has no means. C.R.P.No.52 of 2011 -: 2 :- 4. I have been given a hand written copy of cross examination of the respondent where he stated that petitioner was running an institution at Kaithakkal in the name and style 'Grand Computer' and presently it is functioning in Mother Complex at Thalikulam. But, respondent did not produce any document to prove that. Respondent could have summoned the relevant documents concerning that institution to show that it belongs to the petitioner. That was not done. In that situation I am inclined to think that better evidence regarding alleged means of petitioner is required. Resultantly this civil revision is allowed. Order dated 17.12.2010 in E.P.No.173 of 2010 in O.S.No.1639 of 2001 of the Court of learned Munsiff, Chavakkad is set aside and the execution petition is remitted to the court below for fresh decision on the claim of respondent regarding means of petitioner. Both sides will get opportunity to adduce further evidence if any in the matter. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-