Saleem vs Vishwanathan
2023 Latest Caselaw 8460 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
      MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
                        CRP NO. 21 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2022 IN EP 109/2019 IN C.C.No.17 OF
        2016 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

          SALEEM
          AGED 41 YEARS
          S/O.SULAIMAN,THENGODE HOUSE, PATTANCHERY P.O.,
          PATTANCHERY VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKAD DIST. PIN -
          678 532

          BY ADVS.
          JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
          TITUS JOSEPH



RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER:

          VISHWANATHAN
          AGED 61 YEARS
          S/O.VELAYUDHAN ,ANAKAD HOUSE, PATTANCHERY P.O.,
          PATTANCHERY VILLAGE,CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKAD DIST. PIN -
          678 532

          BY ADVS.
          JACOB SEBASTIAN
          K.V.WINSTON
          ANU JACOB
          DIVYA R. NAIR




     THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRP NO. 21 OF 2023               2



                            O R D E R

This revision is against the order of arrest

warrant issued against the judgment debtor after

conducting an enquiry under Rule 37 of Order 21 CPC

finding that he has got sufficient means to pay the

decree amount in lumpsum, presumably based on two

title deeds produced as Exts.A1 and A2 regarding the

immovable properties held by him. While in the box,

he had advanced a case that he had already sold the

above said two properties but no document was

produced. Even the date of sale or the number of

document of alienation was not disclosed. All these

were kept in darkness. He is aged only 41 years.

Exts.B1 to B22 records were produced to show the

ailment of the petitioner. He had undergone

angioplasty. No other ailment was brought to the

notice of this Court.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

the respondent that the petitioner is still using a

Tata Sumo car for his personal purpose but he is not

the registered owner of the vehicle and his wife is

the registered owner of the vehicle. It is also

submitted that the family of the petitioner is well

placed. They are leading a luxurious life. In fact

all these came up at the time of cross examination

of judgment debtor. He is maintaining his wife and

two minor children. The wife is not an earning

member in the family and it would tell upon what is

behind it. Nobody will be permitted to defraud the

Court under the premise of "no means". It has to be

assessed objectively so as to advance justice.

Suppression of any material fact would disentitle

the benefit of "no means".

3. The trial court had gone into all relevant

aspects and appreciated the evidence in the correct

perspective and found that the petitioner has

sufficient means to pay the decree amount. Going

through the impugned order as well as the evidence

tendered by the parties it is well clear that the

trial court has rightly entered into a finding

regarding sufficient means to pay the decree amount.

As such there is no reason to interfere with the

impugned order. The revision will stand dismissed

with a direction to the execution court to expedite

the disposal of the execution petition within one

month from today for which the parties shall appear

before the execution court on 17.08.2023.

The Revision Petition will stand dismissed

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

LEK