Aneesh Chammollathil vs Syndicate Bank

Kerala High Court

Aneesh Chammollathil vs Syndicate Bank on 21 May, 2024

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
   TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                       CRP NO. 215 OF 2022
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED29.3.22 IN EP 235/2018 IN OS NO.336
              OF 2016 OF MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA
REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            ANEESH CHAMMOLLATHIL,
            AGED 61 YEARS
            S/O. NANU, VALIYAPARAMBATH, THRIPPANGOTTOOR AMSOM,
            POYILOOR DESOM, POYILOOR P.O., THALASSERY TALUK,
            KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 693.

            BY ADVS.V.BINOY RAM
            S.SIDHARDHAN
            K.C.HARISH
            K.R.MONISHA(K/915/2013)



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            SYNDICATE BANK,
            HEAD OFFICE AT MANIPAL, REP. BY ITS MANAGER &
            PRINCIPAL OFFICER, PARAT BRANCH, PARAT P.O.,
            THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN- 670 693.

            Sri. M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR


     THIS    CIVIL   REVISION    PETITION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
 C.R.P.No.215/2022

                                     -:2:-



                                 ORDER

The order dated 29.3.2022 in E.P.No.235/2018 in O.S.No.336/2016 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba is under challenge in this civil revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner is the judgment debtor. The respondent is the decree holder. The decree is a money decree. It is submitted that the total amount due as of today comes to about ₹28,21,656/-.

3. Execution petition was filed for arrest and detention in civil prison. The petitioner pleaded no means. The parties adduced evidence. The decree holder gave evidence as PW1. He asserted that the judgment debtor is running a ready made garment business namely 'Dolphin Garments' and earns ₹45,000/- per month and hence, he has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. The judgment debtor contented that he stopped the business and he has no income from the said business. It is pertinent to note that the loan was availed for C.R.P.No.215/2022 -:3:- starting the very same business. When judgment debtor pleads that he stopped the business, it is up to him to prove the said fact. The learned counsel for the judgment debtor submitted that the burden is on the decree holder to prove the means. There is no doubt for the said legal proposition. In this case, the decree holder has mounted the box and gave evidence that the judgment debtor is running a garment business and earns ₹45,000/- per month. There is nothing to disbelieve the said version. Even though the judgment debtor stated that he stopped the said business, there is no proof to substantiate the same. Hence, I find no illegality or impropriety in the finding of the trial court that the decree holder has succeeded in proving that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt.

The civil revision petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp C.R.P.No.215/2022 -:4:- APPENDIX OF CRP 215/2022 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF PROCEEDINGS SHEET IN EP 235/2018 IN OS 336/2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA.