IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 1194 of 2005 ---------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2005 IN EP 313/04 IN OS.631/1997 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR ) REVN. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KUNJAPPU, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHATTIYODU, NENMENI P.O KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------------------------------------------- N.M.HANEEFA RAWTHER, S/O.LATE MUHAMMED RAWTHER, AGED 70 YEARS, NEDUMANI, KIZHAKKETHARA, KOLLENGODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R. VENKETESH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO. 3388 OF 2005 IN C.R.P.NO. 1194 OF 2005 DISMISSED. 25.03.2008 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, J. ...................................................................... C.R.P. No. 1194 OF 2005 ........................................................................ Dated this the 25th March, 2008 O R D E R The judgment debtor is the Revision Petitioner. He challenges the order dated 30th November, 2005 passed by the court below, rejecting the plea of no means raised by him. The court below has ordered to issue warrant of arrest against him. 2. The Execution Petition is filed for realisation of decree debt of Rs. 56,700/-. The prayer in the Execution Petition is for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor. The judgment debtor contended that he has no means to pay the decree debt. 3. According to the decree holder, the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt in lump sum. It is stated in the evidence of P.W.1/decree holder that the judgment debtor owns an extent of 1.5 acres of agricultural land and that he has four cows. It is also stated that each cow yields 10 litres of milk per day. The decree holder stated that the judgment debtor is an able-bodied man. He had challenged the decree up to the High Court. The decree holder stated that the judgment debtor has deliberately refused and neglected to pay the decree debt. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, the suggestion is that the judgment debtor does not now own the cows. That means, he had ownership of cows. In the evidence of R.W.1/judgment debtor, he has not stated anything regarding the ownership and disposal of the cows. It is admitted that the judgment debtor owns an extent of 1.5 acres of land. The suggestion in the cross examination of P.W.1 is that it is a double crop land. 4. In the proof affidavit filed by the judgment debtor, it is stated that he owns C.R.P. No. 1194 OF 2005 2 1.5 acres of 'Nilam'. But he states that there is not much income from the property. It is also stated in the affidavit that the income from the agricultural land is the sole income of the family. The further statement is that with the help of his relatives, the judgment debtor, his three children and his ailing mother are living. In the cross examination of R.W1/judgment debtor, it is stated that he would get only one crop from the agricultural land and that too, if water is available. This statement does not appear to be correct as it is well known that in Palakkad district , for one crop, rain water is sufficient. The judgment debtor stated that he gets two cart loads of paddy and that it is necessary for the livelihood of the family. His case is that other expenses of his family are being met by his brother-in-law. It is admitted that son of the judgment debtor is employed in a work shop and the married daughter is a teacher. 5. The suit was filed in the year 1997 and it was decreed in 2000. The defendant/judgment debtor has carried the matter in Appeal and Second Appeal . One important aspect to be noted is that in the proof affidavit he has stated that he has to maintain his aged mother. But in the cross examination, he has stated that his mother is no more and that it is not correct to say that his mother is residing with him. The evidence of R.W.1 would indicate that he does not say truth. The court below rightly came to the conclusion that the contention of the judgment debtor that he has no means to pay the decree debt is not correct. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at least, the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to pay the decree debt in 15 monthly instalments. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder stated that reasonable time may be granted to the judgment debtor to pay off the decree debt. 7. It is true that the judgment debtor is having 1.5 acres of paddy land. It is common knowledge that income from the paddy land is meagre. It is not proved that C.R.P. No. 1194 OF 2005 3 even now the judgment debtor owns cows. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to pay the decree debt in ten equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 26.05.2008 and the subsequent instalments shall be paid on or before 25th of succeeding months. If the judgment debtor commits default in payment of two consecutive instalments, the entire balance would become payable at once and the warrant of arrest would follow. It is made clear that the amount already paid shall be given credit to. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. No order as to costs K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk