P K RAJESH Vs. CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is in challenge of the order passed by the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Pattambi on October 12, 2010 in E.P. No.25 of 2010 in O.S. No.142 of 2006. Respondent sought personal execution against petitioners for recovery of money due under the decree. Representative of respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and proved Exts.A1 to A3. Exhibits A1 and A2 are the statements which petitioners had given to the respondent at the time of availing the loan. Exhibit A3 is the copy of written statement where petitioners agreed to pass a decree on consent. P.W.1 gave evidence that petitioner No.2 has 5= cents of land, that petitioner No.1 is conducting a Water Service Station and has 3 cents of land and a house. Petitioners gave evidence as R.Ws.1 and 2 and denied that they have means to pay decree debt. Executing court found that petitioners have sufficient means, refused or neglected to pay the amount and issued warrant of arrest. That order is under challenge in this petition. Learned counsel for petitioners contends that there is no acceptable evidence to prove means of petitioners and that version of P.W.1 regarding means of petitioners has been controverted by the petitioners which, there is no reason to reject.

(2.) THIS Court in Kuppuswamy v. P.G.Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) held that though the initial burden is on the decree holder it is not as if decree holder is bound to bring in evidence of all details of source of income of judgment debtor and that if some evidence indicting means of the judgment debtor is produced it is for the judgment debtor to contradict it.