IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 CRP.No. 422 of 2009() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.245/2007 IN OS.62/2002 of MUNSIFFCOURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 3RD RESPONDENT/ 4TH DEFENDANT ------------------------------ KUMARAN, AGED 65 YEARS, SON OF AYYAPPAKUTTY, THINDIYATH HOUSE, POOVATHUR DESOM, BRAHMAKULAM AMSOM CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD MR.C.JOSEPH JOHNY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/ PLAINTIFF: ------------------------- M/S.LORDS VIEW KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD., GURUVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No. 422 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The revision is filed by the third judgment debtor in E.P No.245/2007 in O.S No.62/2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. Resisting execution of the decree which was passed for suit money, the petitioner / third judgment debtor contended that he has no means to pay the decree debt. A similar contention was also advanced by the second judgment debtor in the execution petition. Disputing that case the decree holder let in evidence by examining one witness and producing the application form containing particulars as to the assets of the debtor and also his sureties, the judgment debtors 2 and 3. In the enquiry, no counter evidence was let in by the W.P.(C).No. 422 OF 2009 Page numbers judgment debtors 2 and 3. Learned Munsiff after evaluating the materials placed came to the conclusion that the plea of no means canvassed by the above judgment debtors is not bonafide and cannot be accepted and warrants were ordered against them directing their detention for a period of one month. Impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order the present revision has been filed by the third judgment debtor. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The plea of nomeans canvassed by the petitioner before the execution court is reiterated before me as a sufficient ground to annul the order impugned in the revision. I am not satisfied with the submission. The Managing Director of the decree holder company has mounted the box and gave evidence to substantiate the case of the decree holder that the judgment debtor has sufficient W.P.(C).No. 422 OF 2009 Page numbers means and their plea of nomeans is meritless. The learned Munsiff who had the opportunity to watch the demeanor of that witness, after appreciating his sworn testimony found it deserved acceptance. No counter evidence was let in by the judgment debtors 2 and 3 to substantiate the plea of no means raised by them. In the circumstance, I find no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned Munsiff that the plea of no means raised by the above judgment debtors is unsustainable. There is no jurisdictional infirmity in the order so passed and it cannot be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv