IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRP.NO. 296 OF 2010() ----------------------------------- E.P. NO.185 OF 2009 IN OS.90/2002 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, VADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, CHELLARIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKODE VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------------------------------- PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KONNAN, MUTTIKKAL HOUSE, MANKARA DESOM, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.296 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2010 O R D E R This Revision Petition is directed against order dated 08.04.2010 in E.P. No.185 of 2009 in O.S. No.90 of 2002 of the court of learned Munsiff, Wadakkancherry. Relying on the evidence of respondent/decree holder as P.W.1 learned Munsiff found that petitioner in spite of having sufficient means neglected or refused to pay amount due under the decree. Warrant of arrest was issued against petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that it is without any evidence that order for issue of warrant has been passed. No reference has been made to Ext.B1, certificate. 2. Respondent in his evidence as P.W.1 stated that petitioner has sixty cents of land in Sy.No.131 of Kanjirakode Village and that petitioner is engaged in real estate business earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Petitioner did not enter the witness box to controvert that statement or adduce evidence. He was satisfied with the answer from respondent (P.W.1) that he had not seen any document concerning property of petitioner and C.R.P. No.296 of 2010 -: 2 :- that information was received from the Village office concerned. Exhibit B1 produced by petitioner is a certificate issued by the Kerala State Housing Board, Thrissur stating that petitioner has availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- for house construction in an extent of nine cents of land. According to the learned counsel version of P.W1 that petitioner is having sixty cents and a building is not correct, nor proved. 3. It is true that means of judgment debtor is to be proved by the decree holder. But it is not as if decree holder is expected to give all the details of source of income of judgment debtor. When he has adduced some evidence on the point it is the responsibility of judgment debtor to rebut the same. In this case as against evidence given by respondent as P.W.1, though information as to the extent of landed property belonging to the petitioner came from the Village office which cannot be said to be irrelevant, there is no evidence adduced by the petitioner. Exhibit B1 is not in any way sufficient to rebut the presumption arising from the evidence of P.W.1. Exhibit B1 does not show that petitioner did not own sixty cents. That apart, Ext.B1 shows that petitioner was having sufficient financial capacity to repay the loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. There is no reason to think that it was with C.R.P. No.296 of 2010 -: 3 :- the intention of not repaying the amount that petitioner availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the finding that petitioner has means and in spite of that petitioner, has refused to pay the amount due under the decree. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be given time to pay the amount due in installments. That ofcourse is a plea which petitioner has to raise before the executing court and persuade decree holder for that course and obtain appropriate orders from the executing court. Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv