IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 327 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2008 IN EP.542/2006 IN OS.719/2000 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,KANNUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED JALEEL C.H., S/O.ERMULLAN KUTTY HAJI, AGED 37 YEARS, RAHIYANAS, AMBALAM ROAD, MUNDAYAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------- P. MUNIRA, D/O. MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 38 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, MUNIGHAR, BENGALI MOHALLA, KANNUR-3. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 327 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008 ORDER This civil revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Kannur, in EP 542/06 in OS 719/00. By the said order, the learned Munsiff has ordered arrest and detention of the respondent therein to the civil prison for a period of one month. This is the second round of litigation before this court. In an earlier occasion, this court has granted time for adducing evidence. The decree holder produced Ext.A1 extract of the building tax assessment register, which indicated that the judgment debtor is a co-owner with respect to the building bearing Nos. IV/52, IV/53 & IV/54 of Elayavoor Grama Panchayat. He is one among the five co-owners. The court below found that till the production of that document, the judgment debtor never agreed that he has got any right in the property. In the decision reported in Kuppuswamy v. P.G.Menon [1992 (2) KLT 203] this court held that “where it is proved or admitted or otherwise evident that the judgment debtor owns or possess a house or has got interest therein, the normal prescription is that he is able to pay the debt either by sale or mortgage or creating other encumbrance of the house. In such circumstances, it is open to the judgment debtor to rebut the presumption and prove either that he does not own or possess the house or that no alienation or encumbrance is possible of that property.” CRP NO.327/08 2 2. At the outset, it has to be stated that the approach itself was a total denial. Except the very ipsi dixit there is nothing to show that the property cannot be used for raising the fund. The court below considered the matter elaborately and had arrived at a decision. It is true that the petitioner is having a disability of 40%. But he was conducting the business and the amount due is the arrear of rent and further that he was in Gulf countries for about two years which all would indicate that the handicap has not been a handicap for earning the livelihood. 3. So I confirm the findings of the court below. I feel that he need not be sent to the civil prison immediately but he be given time till 1.6.08 to wipe off the liability. In case the petitioner does not pay within that limit, let the warrant of arrest be executed against him. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps CRP NO.327/08 3