IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 569 of 2008() --------------------- {IN EP NO.172/2003 IN OS.562/1997 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ----------------------------------------------- M.C. ANILKUMAR, MUZHUKKATTU KALAYIL, SOUTH MANORAMA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------- KUNNATHUKALATHIL FINANCIERS, KOTTAYAM, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, K.V. VISWANATHAN, KUNNATHUKALATHIL, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP No.569/08 ::3 :: ORDER ON I.A.No.1673/08 IN CRP No.569/08 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 11.2.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ C.R.P.No.569 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Judgment debtor in O.S.No.562/97 on the file of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kottayam has filed this revision petition challenging an order passed by the court below directing issue of warrant against him for realisation of the decree debt. The respondent is the decree holder. Petitioner/judgment debtor has pleaded 'no means' to resist the execution of the decree. In the enquiry on the plea so canvassed, the decree holder, the judgment debtor and a witness, a medical practitioner were examined. The judgment debtor had canvassed a case that he is diabetic patient undergoing treatment and as he cannot generate any income he depends on his son. To substantiate his illness he examined a doctor, Dr.P.V.Nayeek. The learned Munsiff, after examining the materials produced and hearing the counsel on both sides, was not satisfied with C.R.P.No.569 of 2008 :: 2 :: the plea of 'no means' canvassed by the judgment debtor and hence negativing his plea, warrant was ordered. 2. Notice was served, but the decree holder has not entered appearance. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Previously, an order passed by the executing court directing issue of warrant against the petitioner had been challenged before this court in revision and, then, setting aside that order, the case was remitted for fresh disposal. Pursuant thereof, after affording an opportunity to examine one more witness, the present order had been passed by the learned Munsiff. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtor assailed the order of the execution court contending that the decree holder has not produced any document to prove the means of judgment debtor, and that being so the execution court accepting the evidence tendered by the C.R.P.No.569 of 2008 :: 3 :: judgment debtor should have accepted his plea of 'no means'. 5. Perusing the impugned order with reference to the facts and circumstances presented, I find that after the passing of the decree, the petitioner had disposed of a property for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree was passed ex parte and he had knowledge of such decree only after transfer of his family property was effected in 1999. The question to be considered is whether since the date of the decree, the petitioner judgment debtor had the means to pay the decree debt or part thereof and still had he neglected or refused to pay the same. An ex parte decree is as good as a decree on merit. The plea that the judgment debtor had no knowledge of the decree when he transferred the property after the decree is of no avail where it is established that the judgment debtor had disposed a property for a value of C.R.P.No.569 of 2008 :: 4 :: Rs.3,50,000/-, after the passing of the decree his plea of 'no means' deserves to be taken note of only for its rejection. 6. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the court below, leave alone the jurisdictional infirmity to interfere with the order passed by the court below for invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy//