V K MOHAMMED Vs. T K HUMYOON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment debtor in E.P. No. 165 of 2007 in O.S. No. 283 of 1995 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Thalassery is the Petitioner before me challenging order dated 06.08.2010 finding means for Petitioner and issuing warrant for his arrest for non-payment of decree amount. Learned Counsel contends that there is no acceptable evidence regarding means of Petitioner and that on two prior occasions execution petition was dismissed on account of failure of Respondent to prove means of Petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner has suffered a decree for payment of money to the Respondent. The latter sought personal execution and his Power of Attorney has given evidence as P.W.1. Exhibit A1 is an information obtained from the office of District Lottery Officer, Kozhikode pursuant to a query under the Right to Information Act as to the business of Petitioner. Exhibit C1 is the report of Advocate Commissioner. Petitioner gave evidence as R.W.1 and proved Ext.B1 series. Exhibit B1 series are produced to show that building where Petitioner is allegedly doing business is demised in favour of his son.

(3.) It is seen from Ext.A1 that Petitioner is engaged in wholesale lottery business at various places in Kannur town. It is also revealed that for the period from 12.11.2007 to 12.11.2008 he deposited Rs. 60 lakhs and for the period from 21.06.2008 to 20.06.2009, Rs. 40 lakhs as security with the District Lottery Officer. It is also revealed that he purchased lottery tickets in August, 2008 for Rs. 5,95,019 and got Rs. 2,56,086/- by way of commission. Advocate Commissioner has reported about the places where Petitioner is conducting wholesale lottery business in Kannur town. Petitioner when examined as R.W.1 stated that he was conducting VeeKay Lottery Agencies at Kannur and that he was its wholesale agent. He also admitted that he had three lottery stalls in Kannur town. In the light of that evidence court below found that Petitioner has sufficient means to discharge the decree debt. It is not disputed that amount due under the decree has not been paid. Hence the finding entered by the court below that Petitioner is having sufficient means requires no interference.