IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16725 of 2008(N) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.328/2006 IN OS.162/2005 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.M.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, SUMATHY BHAVAN, OLATHANI, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT: ---------------------- P.K.JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.KUMARA PILLAI, JALAJA NIVAS, IDAVAZHITHALA, PUTHENVEEDU, OLATHANI, NEYYATTINKARA, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO. 16725 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the judgment debtor and respondent the decree holder. E.P. 328/2006 was filed for arrest and detention of the petitioner contending that he has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and wilfully failed to pay the decree debt. Petitioner contended before the executing court that he has no means to pay the decree debt and therefore he cannot be arrested. Under Ext.P7 order executing court found that decree for Rs.30,400/- with interest was passed against the petitioner on 31.5.2006 and petitioner retired from service on 31.5.2003 and admittedly received Rs.1,72,333/- subsequently. It was therefore found that petitioner had sufficient funds with him after the date of the decree to pay the decree debt and wilfully defaulted to pay. The contention of the petitioner was that he had other liabilities and W.P.(C)16725/2008 2 therefore the retirement benefits received by him was spent to satisfy the other debts and therefore petitioner was not left with any money to satisfy the decree and he cannot be arrested as he has no means. Learned counsel argued that petitioner is having immovable property as spoken to by the decree holder and therefore the decree debt could be realised by sale of the property and petitioner is getting only a monthly pension of Rs.1203/-. 2. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P7 order, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. The decree is only for Rs.30,400/- with interest. It is admitted by the petitioner that he received Rs.1,72,333/- as pensionary benefits subsequent to the date of the decree. Though petitioner claimed that he had to pay other debts details of the other alleged liabilities were not mentioned either in the objection or at the time of evidence or in the petition. Petitioner also did not produce any document to prove that there was any W.P.(C)16725/2008 3 subsisting debt which has to be cleared or for preferring to clear any such debt. From the evidence executing court rightly found that petitioner is having sufficient means and he wilfully failed to pay the decree debt without any valid reason. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006