T.A THAJUDHEEN Vs. KERALA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the judgment debtor in an Execution Petition filed by the respondent/decree holder for realisation of the decree debt of Rs.5,12,813.00 along with costs. The judgment debtor pleaded 'No Means'. The Execution Court passed Ext.P4 order rejecting the plea of 'no means' raised by the judgment debtor, directing the judgment debtor to pay the balance as per the calculation statement of the decree holder within 15 days. Thereafter, the Execution Court passed Ext.P5 order issuing an arrest warrant against the judgment debtor.

(2.) While admitting this Original Petition, this Court granted an interim stay of the execution proceedings on condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.50,000.00 to the respondent within two weeks. The learned counsel for the respondent confirmed that the petitioner has complied with the interim order by making payment of Rs.50,000.00 within the aforesaid time.

(3.) Both sides advanced arguments, and on consideration of the arguments, I find that in Ext.P5, the Execution Court has relied on the GST particulars produced by the decree holder to find that the judgment debtor has an ample source of income. The said GST particulars are not seen marked in evidence in the proceedings. When the officer of the decree holder was examined as PW1, a specific question was put to him that the judgment debtor was not in a position to do any work, and the witness answered in the affirmative. Apart from the GST particulars referred to in the order, there is no other evidence adduced by the decree holder to prove that the judgment debtor is wilfully avoiding payment of the decree debt in spite of having an income. Even if there is a GST registration in his name, that does not mean that he has an ample source of income to satisfy the decree debt. The source of income of the judgment debtor is a matter for the decree holder to prove when the plea of no means is raised by the judgment debtor. There was no material before the Execution to hold that the judgment debtor who has the means to pay a substantial part of the decree debt, has been refusing and neglecting payment to the decree debt.