IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 3285 of 2001()
1. MAJOR KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THOMAS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS
For Respondent :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.Q.BARKATH ALI
Dated :25/11/2009
O R D E R
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