Shaji V.G. vs Cpm Chitty Fund (Pvt) Ltd on 2 December, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 332 of 2006()


1. SHAJI V.G., S/O. GOPALAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CPM CHITTY FUND (PVT) LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. RAMESH M.N.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.TITUS MANI

                For Respondent  :SRI.RINNY STEPHEN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :02/12/2009

 O R D E R
                    S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -----------------------------------
                       C.R.P.No.332 of 2006 - C
                     ---------------------------------
             Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009

                                O R D E R

Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.48 of 2005 in

O.S.No.344 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kanjirappally.

The decree executed is passed in a suit for money and, the first

respondent is the decree holder. Petitioner resisting the decree set

up a plea of no means. Learned Munsiff after conducting an enquiry

in which authorised representative of the decree holder and also the

petitioner/first judgment debtor were examined came to the

conclusion that the plea of no means canvassed by the petitioner is

meritless. On forming such conclusion learned Munsiff passed the

impugned order directing issue of warrant against the petitioner.

Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision.

2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the plea

canvassed that he is not possessed of any means submitted that

the court below has not examined that plea with reference to the

materials tendered in the case. There was no adequate evidence to

conclude that his plea of no means is meritless. The decree holder

C.R.P.No.332 of 2006 – C

2

has let in evidence that the judgment debtor is possessed of

immovable properties and if that be so, avoiding personal execution

against the petitioner his property can be proceeded with, is the

further submission of the counsel. Perusing the order passed by the

learned Munsiff, I find there is no illegality of impropriety

warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is

seen the learned Munsiff after appreciating the materials tendered

has come to the conclusion that the plea of no means canvassed by

the petitioner is devoid of any merit. The judgment debtor cannot

insist that the decree holder has to proceed against the property

and not personally against him in execution of the decree. It is for

the decree holder to choose one of the two modes for realising the

decree debt. There is no merit in the challenge raised against the

order passed by the learned Munsiff directing issue of warrant

against the petitioner/first judgment debtor.

Revision lacks merit, and it is dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE.

bkn/-