IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 539 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 198/2008 IN E.P.No.298/2004 IN OS.2021/1998 of II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: 3rd JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------ V.VIKRAMAN, RECORD KEEPER, ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OFFICE RESIDING AT T.C.15/1936, VAZHUTHACAUD, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER ----------------- B. RAJENDRAN NAIR, FEXMA GENERAL CHITTY FUND THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.539 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th July, 2008. O R D E R Petitioner is the third judgment debtor in O.S.No.2021 of 1998, on the file of Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. E.P.No.298 of 2004 was filed for arrest and detention of the petitioner contending that he has sufficient means and willfully failed to discharge the decree debt. Petitioner raised a contention that he has no means. Learned Munsiff originally upheld the case of the decree holder and ordered his arrest. It was challenged before this Court in C.R.P.No.208 of 2007. This Court remanded the execution petition to the executing court to consider whether petitioner has sufficient means. Executing Court thereafter conducted an enquiry and found that petitioner has sufficient means. At that stage, petitioner filed E.A.No.198 of 2008 under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to direct the Superior Officer of the petitioner to deposit a portion of his salary by deducting it from the salary. It was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. It is under challenge in this revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. CRP.No.539/2008 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. When the decree holder filed the execution petition for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor, judgment debtor is not entitled to contend that decree holder is to seek some other mode like attachment of the salary or sale of movable or immovable properties. It is for the decree holder to decide what mode he has to execute the decree. When the Executing Court found that petitioner has the sufficient means, he cannot be allowed to circumvent the order by filing an application like the one before the Executing Court. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order dismissing the application. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.