SUNIL RAJAN Vs. PAZHAMADAM FINANCE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the judgment-debtor and the decree is one for money. Steps for execution were initiated. An amount of about Rs.27,000/- is due. The petitioner raised a plea of no means. Evidence was adduced. The decree holder examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and proved Ext.A1. The judgment-debtor i.e., the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. The court below, called upon to choose between the oral evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of P.W.1 commends itself for acceptance especially in the light of Ext.A1 certificate proved through P.W.2. That certificate shows that, contrary to the assertion made by D.W.1, he had registration as a boat employee in the Panchayat. To choose between the oral evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1, Ext.A1 certificate proved by P.W.2 was made use of by the court below. Of course, it is true that even though the decree-holder had alleged that the judgment-debtor has landed properties and business, he was not able to tender any better evidence than his own oral assertion in support of that case. But notwithstanding that, the court below adverted to the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and on broad probabilities, came to the conclusion that the oral evidence of P.W.1 is acceptable.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the court below W.P.(C) NO. 5944 OF 2006-G 2 erred grossly in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has sufficient means. The said finding of fact warrants interference., it is contended.

(3.) I have considered all the relevant inputs. I must alertly remind myself of the nature and quality of the jurisdiction which I am called upon to exercise. Findings of fact rendered by the subordinate courts or the discretion exercised by them in choosing to place reliance on one witness and not to place reliance on another cannot normally be a ground for invocation of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction available under Art.227 of the Constitution. Is the finding perverse. Is there error of jurisdiction. Does the impugned order result in miscarriage or failure of justice. These are the questions which are germane when the court considers the question whether the powers under Art.227 of the Constitution deserve to be invoked.