IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 3285 of 2001() ---------------------- OS.2347/1997 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER --------------------- M/S. MAJOR KURIES & LOANS (P)LTD, THRISSUR REP. BY CHAIRMAN BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL RESPONDENT(S): JUDGMENT DEBTORS --------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O MAROCKY PORINCHU MANNUTHY DESOM, OLLUKARA VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK 2. REGHU, S/O ARANDATHU RAMAN MENON NETTISSERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK 3. RAVI, S/O CHOONDAYIL RAMANKUTTY PANANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON FOR R2 & R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P .No.3285 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the decree holder in E.P.No.537/99 in O.S.No.2347/1997 of Principal Munsiff Court, Thrissur challenging the order of the Munsiff dated July 31, 2001 dismissing the E.P. holding that the decree holder has failed to prove the means of judgment debtors 1 to 3. 2. The decree holder M/s.Major Kuries & Loans (P)Ltd, Thrissur filed O.S.No.2347/1997 to recover the kuri amount from judgment debtors 1 to 3. The first defendant remained ex parte and second and third defendants withdrew their contentions and the suit was decreed. The decree holder filed the E.P. for realisation of the amount from the judgment debtors by arrest and detention of them in the civil prison. 3. First respondent/first judgment debtor remained absent. Second and third respondents in their counter statement raised the plea CRP.NO.3285/01 Page numbers of no means. PW1 was examined on the side of the decree holder and RW1 was examined on the side of respondents 2 and 3. Though the decree holder contended that judgment debtors 2 and 3 have several properties and business , no documents were produced to prove the same. Therefore, the lower court found that decree holders failed to prove the means of respondents 2 and 3. The decree holder did not press the E.P. as against the first respondent. Therefore, the lower court by the impugned order dismissed the E.P. Though time was granted to the decree holder to produce documents to prove the means of the judgment debtors, no document is produced. 4. Counsel for the decree holder submitted that the matter may be remanded to the lower court after affording an opportunity to decree holder to produce documents to prove the means of the judgment debtors. This is opposed by the counsel for respondents. 5. This is a revision of the year 2001. Therefore, I am not inclined to remand the case to the lower court . Even before this court, decree holder did not produce any documents to prove the means of the respondents. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision petition and the CRP.NO.3285/01 Page numbers same is liable to be dismissed. The decree holder is permitted to file a fresh E.P. before the lower court if he obtains any document to show that judgment debtors have any means to pay the decree debt. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as found above. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. CRP.NO.3285/01 Page numbers P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. CRP.NO.3285/01 Page numbers