The High Court allowed a civil revision petition allowing the attachment of the petitioner's decree-holder by issuing a declaration that the respondent has the means to pay the decree amount in any way.
The impugned order is set aside and the respondent will be arrested and detained in civil prison for three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937
CRP.No. 466 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P 373/2014 IN O.S 23/2012 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KANNUR DATED 26.05.2015.
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF:
-----------------------------------------------
THAZHEY PURAYIL KHADEEJABI AGED 74 YEARS D/O.MAHAMOOD HAJEE, HOUSE WIFE RESIDING AT ANAYIDUKKU WARD, KANNUR -12.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH
SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENT(S)/JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT:
KUNNUMBRATH SAJEEVAN
S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT MUNICIPAL QUARTERS, THANA KANNUR 12.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
=======================
C.R.P No.466 of 2015
============================ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2016
ORDER
Petitioner is the decree holder in O.S No.23 of 2012 of Munsiff Court, Kannur. The decree is for realization of about `1,30,000/-. She filed E.P No.373 of 2014 praying for arrest and detention of the respondent/judgment debtor in civil prison for nonpayment of the decree debt. The respondent pleaded no means. Evidence was recorded. The learned Munsiff found that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent has means to pay the decree debt. Its correctness is questioned.
C.R.P No.466/2015
2
Act. Section 65B of Evidence Act only prescribes the mode of proof of the document. The document was marked without any objection. After receiving it in evidence without any objection, the learned Munsiff was not right in refusing to act upon it.
by the respondent every month is up to `5,000/-. This shows that he has income from unknown sources. He has suppressed it. The decree holder can certainly rely on Ext.X1 to prove that he has the income to discharge the entire decree debt or a substantial portion thereof. She has discharged her burden. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the respondent, I am of the view that he has the means to pay the decree debt. The order of the lower court is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent will be arrested and detained in civil prison for three months.
Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE
vdv/18/01/16
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned Munsiff was justified in refusing to act upon mobile phone bills proved under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as a means of recovery.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Thazhey Purayil Khadeejabi
Kunnumbrath Sajeevan
K.Abraham Mathew
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
