M. K. LAKSHMAN Vs. K. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the Order of the Sub Judge of Mavelikkara in E.A. No. 943 of 1996 in E.P. No. 159 of 1,996 in O.S. No. 132 of 1982.

(2.) The revision petitioner was the judgment debtor in O.S. No. 132 of 1982 before the Sub court of Mavelikara. In pursuance to the decree obtained for realisation of the amount due from the revision petitioner, E.P. No 159 of 1996 was filed against him. The contention of the revision petitioner was that the power of attorney produced before the executing court was not executed by the decree holder and that it was a forged one. Another contention taken was that as per the account maintained by the revision petitioner the amount was discharged to the decree holder and that there was no amount due as per the decree. To prove his contentions the revision petitioner wanted evidence to be let in before the executing court. Thus he filed E. A. No. 943 of 1996 to summon the decree holder as a witness to prove his case. That was rejected by the executing court. Hence this revision.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that if the revision petitioner was given an opportunity to let in oral evidence and if he was allowed to cross examine, the decree holder it would turn out that the power of attorney produced was forged one as the signature therein was different from the admitted signature in the plaint and the vakalath. It was also submitted that if the revision petitioner was permitted to produce his accounts showing the discharge of the decree debt, there was no necessity to execute the decree. Thus the prayer of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was that the revision petitioner should be given an opportunity to let in oral evidence. Thus the point arising for consideration is as to whether any oral evidence can be let in by the executing court.