IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 1525 of 2002(E) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2002 IN EA.45/2002 IN OS.495/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT,MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANT(JUDGEMENT DEBTOR): ------------------------------------------------ 1. JIBI KURIAKOSE, AGED S/O.ITHAPIRI, MOOTHEDATHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, MARADY KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 1. MARKOSE S/O.JOHN, ERESSERIL THEKKUM MURI, CHERTHALA THEKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF(DECREE HOLDER): --------------------------------------- 1. M.T.ISSAC, MAIAYILPUTHENPURA, SOUTH MARADY KARA, MARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 1. TREESA, D/O.MARIAMMA, CHULLIKKAL, THEKUM MURI, ARTHUNKAL, CHERTHALA THEKKU VILLAGE. 2. ANTONY, S/O.GABRIAL, PREETHI NIVAS, THRIKKANDAVOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.THAMPY CHERIAN FOR R SRI.CHERIAN THOMAS FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.3796/02 IN CRP.NO.1525/2002 DISMISSED. 10.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1525 OF 2002 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.A.No.45 of 2002 in E.P.No.127 of 2001 in O.S.No.495 of 2000 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. In execution of the money decree passed in the suit, warrant of arrest was issued against the judgment debtor. That order was passed ex parte since the judgment debtor defaulted to appear before the court pursuant to notice ordered under Order XXI Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Later, he moved an application for recalling the warrant. The learned Munsiff, vide the impugned order, directed the judgment debtor to deposit one half of the decree amount as a condition precedent for recalling the warrant. Propriety and correctness of that order is impeached in this revision. 2. The impugned order had been passed by the CRP.1525/02 2 execution court as early on 4th June, 2002. Though the respondent had entered appearance through a counsel, the revision could not be taken for hearing since that counsel had passed away. Notice issued to the judgment debtor informing him of the death of his counsel directing to make fresh arrangement, remain not responded so far. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner/judgment debtor has a plea of no means and he is deprived of canvassing that plea in view of the rigorous condition imposed by the court under the impugned order, is the submission of the learned counsel. If at all he has a plea of no means and that he is an insolvent, it is open to him to canvass such plea as provided under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure in case on his arrest and production before the court after execution of the arrest warrant. Needless to point out, if any such plea is made, the court below has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Revision is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1525 OF 2002 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 10th day of February, 2010