KUPPUSWAMY Vs. P G MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment debtor in O.S. No. 700 of 1986, Munsiff's Court, Palakkad is the revision-petitioner. In this revision, he objects to the order passed by the court below in E.P. No. 381 of 1990 dated 30-9-1991. By the said order, the learned Munsiff held that the Judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay off the debt and ordered to issue an arrest warrant against him. The Judgment debtor assails the said order.

(2.) I heard counsel. The respondent/Decree holder obtained a decree for Rs. 6,200/- against the revision-petitioner. He filed E.P. No. 381 of 1990 and resorted to the coercive process of personal execution. The Judgment debtor contended that he has no means to pay the decree debt. The decree holder was examined as PW l. He stated that the Judgment debtor owns houses and has assets to pay the decree debt. He also stated that the children have good jobs. In cross examination of PW l, it was brought out that the houses belong to the deceased wife of the judgment debtor. The revision-petitioner contended that the wife had executed a Will. But, no such Will was produced in the court below. It is fairly clear that on the death of the wife of the judgment debtor, he will get a share in the property. The court below found so. The judgment debtor did not enter the box; nor did he adduce any evidence to challenge the above facts brought out in the examination of the decree holder (PW l). In the absence of such evidence, the court below held that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay off the debt and ordered the issue of arrest warrant against him.

(3.) S.51(c) read with clause (b) of the proviso of the Code of the Civil Procedure is relevant to appreciate the plea of the revision-petitioner,, that the court below was in error in holding that the judgment debtor has the means to pay the amount of the decree or some substantial part thereof and refuses or neglects or has refused or neglected to pay the same. The said section is as follows: