IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929 CMCP.No. 54 of 2006 IN R.F.A.NO. ... OF 2006 ------------------------ OS.35/2004 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: -------------------- K.V. THOMAS, S/O. VARKEY, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUNNAKUNNAM, KUTTAPPUZHA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: PLAINTIFF: ----------------------- M.K. DIVAKARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, MAILUMMOOTTIL VEEDU, PUNNAKUNNAM, KUTTAPPUZHA, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.S.RAJASENAN THIS CIVIL MISC. CASE(PAUPER) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.M.C.P. NO. 54/2006 IN RFA........ OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2008. O R D E R Raman, J. The only item shown as possessed by the petitioner is an extent of 7.30 Ares of dry land in Sy. No. 242/10 and a residential building situated therein. But according to the petitioner, the said property is the subject matter of attachment in the present suit. 2. It is averred by the party respondent in his counter affidavit that the petitioner has got income from his business. As per the averments in the counter affidavit, petitioner has got five SBT shares and in support of this contention, Ext.R1(a) is produced. To show that petitioner is running a marriage bureau, Ext.R1(b) is produced. The materials produced, however, does not show that the petitioner is deriving income sufficient to pay off the court fee in this case. In the circumstances, we find that the only property possessed by the petitioner has been attached in the suit and he has no sufficient means to pay the court fee. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-