Perumal vs Sureshkumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 1648 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
        TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
                                CRP NO. 81 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN EP 5/2018 IN OS 348/2014 OF PRINCIPAL
                            MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD
REVISION PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT:

            PERUMAL
            AGED 47 YEARS
            S/O.VELUCHAMI,
            248Q, CHINNAPPALLY STREET
            MELMURI, PALAKKAD
            NOW RESIDING AT KULIAKKAD,
            KALLEPPULLY POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 005
            BY ADVS.
            SAJAN VARGHEESE K.
            LIJU. M.P


RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF

            SURESHKUMAR
            S/O.SOMAN
            AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER
            'SS SADHANAN' ANAVOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
            REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
            THIRUPPATHY,
            S/O.DHANUSHKODY, AGED 46 YEARS,
            17/179, OTHUR THARA,
            KALLEPPULLY POST
            PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 005

     THIS   CIVIL    REVISION   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP NO. 81 OF 2022
                                      2


                              ORDER

Dated this the 15th day of February, 2022

The revision petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in

E.P.5/2018 in O.S.No.348/2014 on the file of the Principal

Munsiff's Court, Palakkad, has filed this Civil Revision Petition

under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As per order

dated 11.01.2022, the learned Munsiff conducted Order XXI Rule

40 enquiry and found that the revision petitioner/judgment

debtor is having means to pay off the decree debt.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner that the revision petitioner so far deposited

Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only). That apart,

he even admitted that he is doing the job of a mason. However,

he argued that the evidence of the decree-holder as PW1 does

not suggest means to the petitioner/judgment debtor. The

execution court appraised the evidence of PW1, supporting the

means of the decree-holder and found the same convincing.

Accordingly, the warrant was ordered.

3. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

argued to convince that the revision petitioner has no means to CRP NO. 81 OF 2022

pay off the debt. On perusal of the order impugned at par with

the evidence given by PW1, this Court could not justify the

contention. It appears that in order to drag and delay the

payment of money, this Original Petition is filed without any

justified reasons.

Hence, I could not find any perversity or arbitrariness in the

order impugned since the order speaks of rationale to find means

to the revision petitioner. Therefore, this Original Petition lacks

merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

nkr