IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 486 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/07/2009 IN EP 12/07 IN OS.88/2002 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------ RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, THOTTATHIL VEEDU, PRAKKANAM MURI, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.C.R.REGHUNATHAN SRI.M.V.ASHIM RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------- DAISY MATHEW, MALLAPPALLI VEEDU, PARAYANALI MURI, OMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.486 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of August, 2009 O R D E R This revision is filed against the order in E.P.No.12 of 2007 in O.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.12 of 2007 in O.S.No.88 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. The judgment debtor is in possession of 30 cents of land, which is under orders of attachment for satisfaction of the decree. He raised a plea of no means to resist the execution. The court below found that he is a driver holding a heavy licence. On the facts and circumstances presented in the case, court below found that the plea of no means raised by the petitioner has no merit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented, I find this is not a fit case where interference with the order of the court is called for in exercise of its visitorial jurisdiction vested with this CRP.486/09 2 Court. Revision is accordingly dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp