IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 522 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.70/04 IN EP.175/03 IN OS.653/2000 of ADDL.M.C.,KOZHIKODE-I .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------ BAIJU NATH, S/O. CHANDRAN, BIJU NIVAS, POST MAKKADA, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------------- E.K. SAIKUMAR, S/O. KUNJIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRUTHILAYA, MAKKADA, KOZHIKODE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.1445/04 IN C.R.P.NO.522/04 DISMISSED. 9.4.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.522 OF 2004 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order passed by the execution court, Munsiff Court, Kozhikode, declining the request of the petitioner/judgment debtor for recalling the warrant issued against him in the execution proceedings from the decree passed in O.S.No.653 of 2000. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor submits that resisting the execution, a plea of no means was canvassed, but, on the date fixed for the enquiry thereof, the petitioner could not present himself before court for unavoidable reasons. In view of his absence, an order for issuing warrant against him was passed by the court. Petitioner thereupon moved an application for review of that order by filing a petition. That petition was rejected by the court below for the reason no amount was deposited. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision, according to the counsel. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. The decree holder after receipt of notice has not entered appearance. It is CRP.522/04 2 seen that a conditional order of stay was passed in the revision directing the judgment debtor to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- for staying the further execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that that order has been complied with. From the submissions made, it is seen that the decree is for a sum of Rs.69,000/- with future interest, which, now, it is submitted, comes to more than Rs.25,000/-. Having regard to the fact that the revision was filed as early in 2004, and the execution proceedings continue as stayed, I find further indulgence to the petitioner/judgment debtor to have an enquiry on his plea of no means canvassed can be extended only on the following condition: Petitioner shall deposit a further sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as a condition precedent for a reconsideration of his plea of no means canvassed to resist the execution of the decree. Such deposit shall be made within two months from the date of this order. If the petitioner had deposited Rs.15,000/-, as ordered for stay of operation of the execution of the decree, which is stated CRP.522/04 3 to have been made as per the submissions made by the counsel, and a further deposit as directed in this order is also made by him within the time stipulated, the court below shall conduct an enquiry on his plea of no means irrespective of the order impugned in the revision. If there is default in making deposit of any of the sums indicated above, the court below shall proceed with the execution of the warrant against the judgment debtor. Subject to the above direction, the revision is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp CRP.522/04 4