IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 202 of 2008()
1. RAJA PAUL, S/O.ARIMBOOR MANI, PADINJARE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SHAJI JACOB, S/O.KUTHUR JACOB,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.K.CHINNAN
For Respondent :SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRP.Nos. 202 & 527 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF JULY, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.417 of 1998 and
O.S.412 of 1998 on the file of Munsiff Court, Chavakkad. CRP
202 of 2008 is filed challenging the order that
petitioner/judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the
decree debt in E.P.502 of 2005 of O.S.412 of 1998. In that
revision, respondent appeared through Adv.P.Ramachandran.
The order of arrest in E.P.502 and 503 of 2005 were originally
challenged in CRP 202 of 2008. When that CRP was partly heard
and it was pointed out that petitioner is not entitled to challenge
the order of arrest in two execution petitions in one CRP and
CRP 527 of 2008 was filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent took notice
for the decree holder, respondent in that revision also. Both the
revisions were heard together.
3. The impugned order in both the revision petitions are
similar. They show that learned Munsiff has not analysed the
evidence adduced by decree holder or judgment debtor. Instead,
what is stated in both the orders is that on a perusal of oral
CRP 202 & 527/08 2
testimony of PW1 and RW1 and Exts.A1 and A2, it is found that
judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. It
does not show what portion of the evidence of PW1 or RW1
establish the means. It is pointed out that Ext.A1 is the
judgment in the suit and Ext.A2, a notice which came into
existence before the institution of the suit and marked as Ext.A5
in the suit. There is no specific finding based on the evidence. In
such circumstances, both the impugned orders are set aside.
4. Learned Munsiff is directed to reconsider the question
of sufficient means of the petitioner in the light of the evidence
on record. Parties are also permitted to adduce further
evidence. Executing court is directed to dispose the execution
petitions, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-