IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 269 of 2006()
1. K.A.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.N.MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.K.CHANDRACHOODAN (ERNAKULAM)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :16/01/2007
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
--------------------------
C.R.P.No.269 OF 2006
-------------------------
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner is third judgment debtor in O.S.339/96 on the file of
Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. As per order dated, 13.2.06, executing Court
found that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and
petitioner willfully refused to pay same. Executing Court directed
petitioner to pay the balance decree debt within two months. It is
challenged in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of
Civil Procedure.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.
3. Arguments of learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was
that evidence of petitioner as RW1 establish that he has taken voluntary
retirement and is not having sufficient means to pay the decree debt
and therefore the order is to be quashed.
4. Learned Munsiff on the evidence considered the question
whether petitioner has sufficient means. It was found that petitioner
received Rs.1,17,481/- from his employer at the time of retirement.
Though it was contended by petitioner that he had paid that amount to
different creditors, no satisfactory evidence was adduced to establish
that fact. On the evidence it was found that petitioner has sufficient
C.R.P.269/06 2
means. Though learned Counsel appearing for petitioner sought
remand of the case contending that petitioner has to be permitted
to examine the creditors to whom petitioner paid the amount, even
in the revision petition he has no case that sufficient opportunity to
examine witness was not granted. In such circumstances, prayer
for remand cannot be allowed. On appreciating the evidence, I do
not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in
exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Evidence
establish that petitioner has sufficient means. Even though it was
contended that petitioner is only a surety and the mortgaged
property is not proceeded against as petitioner has joint and several
liability. On those grounds petitioner cannot avoid the liability or
avoid payment.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner then submitted
that petitioner may be granted nine months time to pay the entire
decree debt. Though notice was served on the decree holder, he
did not appear either personally or through Counsel.
In the light of the submission made by learned Counsel
appearing for petitioner, executing Court is directed to grand eight
months time from today to pay the balance decree debt and only on
its failure to order the arrest and detention.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE
Acd
C.R.P.269/06 3