IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 1069 of 2005()
1. P.N.PEETHAMBHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.S.SREEDHARAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.TITUS MANI
For Respondent :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :09/04/2008
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
............................................................................
C.R.P. No. 1069 OF 2005
............................................................................
Dated this the 9th April, 2008
O R D E R
The judgment debtor, a retired teacher challenges the order passed by the court
below in E.P.No. 58 of 2004 in O.S.No. 425 of 1998 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court,
Kanjirappally, holding that the judgment debtor has means to pay the decree debt and
that he is liable to be arrested and detained in civil prison in execution of the decree.
As per the judgment, the respondent/plaintiff was allowed to realise a sum of Rs.
60,000/- with interest . Since the judgment debtor failed to pay the decree debt, an
Execution Petition was filed praying that the decree may be executed by putting the
judgment debtor in civil prison. The judgment debtor contended that he has no means
to pay off the decree debt.
2. Before the court below, the decree holder was examined as P.W1 and the
judgment debtor was examined as R.W.1. It has come out in evidence and it is
admitted by the judgment debtor that he owns an extent of 12 cents of land and a
building thereon. According to the decree holder, the property would fetch a value of
Rs.10 lakhs, while according to the judgment debtor, the property would fetch a value
of only Rs. 1,50,000/-. The judgment debtor is a retired teacher and he is receiving
monthly pension. The judgment admitted that he is getting Rs.4825/- as monthly
pension. According to the judgment debtor, he has to pay a sum of Rs.1500/- to the
State Bank of Travancore, Mundakkayam towards repayment of loan taken by him.
No documentary evidence was produced before the court below to prove the same.
C.R.P. No. 1069 OF 2005
2
On the basis of the materials and the evidence on record, the court below came to the
conclusion that the judgment debtor has the means to pay off the decree debt. This
finding of fact was arrived at by the court below, after taking into account the oral
evidence in the case as well. There is no ground to upset the findings of fact arrived at
by the court below. The court below has correctly come to the conclusion that the
decree holder has proved that the judgment debtor has the means to pay off the decree
debt or a substantial portion thereof and has failed to pay.
3. There is no ground for interference in this Revision filed under Section 115 of
the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No
order as to costs. However, taking into account the fact that the judgment debtor is a
retired teacher and the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner that a
reasonable time may be granted to the judgment debtor to discharge the decree debt ,
three months’ time is granted to the petitioner to pay off the decree debt. The execution
proceedings shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months. It is submitted
by the counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the very same transaction as involved
in the suit, the decree holder had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and that the judgment debtor was convicted for the offence. The
appeal filed by the judgment debtor against the conviction and sentence was dismissed.
It is submitted that a Revision is pending against the conviction and sentence. Learned
counsel also submitted that as per the interim order granted in the Criminal Revision
Petition, the judgment debtor has deposited a sum of Rs.30,000/-. The counsel also
submits that there are chances of settlement of the criminal case between the parties
and in that event, the deposit made, as per the orders of the High Court in the Criminal
Revision Petition may be taken into account for the purpose of disposal of the
C.R.P. No. 1069 OF 2005
3
Execution Petition. I am not expressing any view in the matter . The question is left
open to be considered.
K.T. SANKARAN,
JUDGE.
lk
C.R.P. No. 1069 OF 2005
4
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
………………………………………………..
C.R.P. No. 1069 OF 2005
…………………………………………………
Dated this the 9th April, 2008
O R D E R