High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
T.K.BIJU S/O.KESAVAN v. THE FEDARAL BANK LTD. - WP(C) No. 264 of 2007(F)  RD-KL 212 (3 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 264 of 2007(F)
1. T.K.BIJU S/O.KESAVAN,
1. THE FEDARAL BANK LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ELIAS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J............................................ W.P.(C)No.264 OF 2007 ............................................
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
Petitioner is challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the executing court, finding that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and he wilfully neglected to pay the same and therefore liable to be arrested. The case of petitioner was that learned Munsiff did not properly appreciate the evidence and it should have been found that petitioner has no sufficient means to pay the decree debt and in such circumstances the order is to be set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner was that evidence only shows that petitioner is working in a workshop and is getting Rs.150/- per month and there is no evidence to prove that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and therefore Ext.P2 order is to be set aside.
3. The learned Munsiff appreciated the evidence of PW1, the witness examined on the side of the decree holder and petitioner the judgment debtor as DW1. What WP(C)264/2007 2 was contended by petitioner in his objection to Rule 37 notice, was that he is not having any means or employment. It was his case that he gets only occasional coolie work and with that income he is living. But as PW1, decree holder deposed that petitioner is working in a workshop for the last more than ten years and is getting a monthly income of Rs.6000/-. When petitioner was examined as DW1, he admitted that he is not a coolie, as stated in the objection filed before the court. He also admitted that he has been working in a workshop for the last ten years. Though petitioner claimed that he is getting only Rs.150/- per month, he did not adduce any evidence. The learned Munsiff on the evidence accepted the evidence of PW1 and found that petitioner has sufficient means. I do not find any reason to interfere with that finding of facts. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner then submitted that petitioner may be permitted to pay the decree debt in instalments. If the petitioner files an application before the executing court undertaking to discharge the entire decree within ten equal monthly instalments executing court may allow WP(C)264/2007 3 him to discharge the debt in instalments. Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGElgk/-
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.