Raman Nair Parambumthattathil v. P. N. Gopinathan Nair and Radhika Raman Nair Parambumthattathil

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 CRP.No. 421 of 2017 () ----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.68/12 IN O.S.435/09 DATED 306.17 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER/1ST J.D. : ----------------------------- RAMAN NAIR PARAMBUMTHATTATHIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER & 2ND J.D: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.N.GOPINATHAN NAIR PARAYIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686564. 2. RADHIKA RAMAN NAIR PARAMBUMTHATTATHIL HOUSE, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM -686564. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN DR.SHERINE JOSEPH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-112017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.No. 421 of 2017 () ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : ANNEXURE A1 : ORDER IN E.A.307/16 DATED 29.3.2016 OF PRL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE A2 : THE DOCUMENT ISSUED FROM STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMISSION DATED 23.6.2017 ANNEXURE A3 : MEMO DATED 14.3.2017 IN C.M.APPL.NO.101/16 ## RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV ## **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.** **--------------------------------------C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 29[th] day of November, 2017 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner, who is the 1[st] judgment debtor in E.P.No.68 of 2012 in O.S.No.435 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order to set aside the order dated 30.6.2017 of the said court in that execution petition, whereby the prayer made by the 1[st] respondent/decree holder for realisation of the decree debt in E.P.No.68 of 2012 in O.S.No.435 of 2009 by the arrest and detention of the petitioner/1[st] judgment debtor stands allowed. 2. On 19.7.2017, this Court admitted this Civil Revision Petition on file and issued notice to the respondents by speed post. This Court has also granted interim stay of the operation of the order dated 30.6.2017 in E.P.No.68 of 2012 in O.S.No.435 of 2009 for a period of one month. The said interim order was extended until further orders on 24.8.2017. 3. Along with this Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 2 has filed I.A.No.1815 of 2017 seeking an order to accept certain additional documents. The 1[st] respondent/decree holder has filed I.A.No.2649 of 2017, seeking an order to vacate the order of stay granted in I.A.No.1815 of 2017. To the said interlocutory application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner/1[st] judgment debtor. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/1[st] judgment debtor and also the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent/decree holder. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the 2[nd] respondent/2[nd] judgment debtor, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner/1[st] judgment debtor. 5. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is as to whether an interference is warranted on the order dated 30.6.2017 of the execution court in E.P.No.68 of 2012 in O.S.No.435 of 2009. 6. O.S.No.435 of 2009 was one filed by the 1[st] respondent/plaintiff before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam for realisation of money from the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent, who are the defendants in that suit. The said suit was decreed as prayed for. To execute the decree in O.S.No.435 of 2009, the decree holder filed E.P.No.68 of 2012. C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 3 In that execution petition, the petitioner/1[st] judgment debtor was issued with a warrant of arrest, after conducting an enquiry under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on a finding that he has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and as such, his plea of no means cannot be accepted. The said order of the execution court was under challenge in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016 filed before this Court. The decree holder has also filed O.P.(C).No.3247 of 2016 before this Court, contending that the 1[st] judgment debtor, though having sufficient means, is evading the process of the court. The decree holder sought for an order commanding the execution court to issue direction to the Police to arrest the 1[st] judgment debtor and bring him before court in execution of the decree in O.S.No.435 of 2009. 7. C.R.P.No.328 of 2016 and O.P.(C).No.3247 of 2016 were disposed of by a common order dated 24.05.2017, a certified copy of which is made available for the perusal of this Court by the learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent/decree holder. A reading of the said order would show that, the main contention raised by the petitioner/1[st] judgment debtor before this Court in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016 was that, the finding of the C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 4 execution court that he earns income as Chief Editor of a magazine titled 'Thathwamasy' is incorrect. He contended that, the magazine was published by Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath, a society registered under the TravancoreCochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It was also his contention that the publication 'Thathwamacy' is circulated free of cost to the devotees. 8. A reading of paragraph 6 of the order of this Court dated 24.05.2017 in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016 and O.P.(C). No.3247 of 2016 would show that, in the order of the execution court which was impugned in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016, the execution court found that the 1[st] judgment debtor earns income as the Chief Editor of a magazine titled 'Thathwamacy'. The execution court has also found that the said magazine contains lot of advertisements and that, the 1[st] judgment debtor would have earned income from the advertisements. Paragraph 6 of the order dated 24.05.2017 in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016 and O.P.(C).No.3247 of 2016 reads thus; “6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/Judgment Debtor submitted that the order passed by the court below is illegal and unsustainable. According to him, the finding that the petitioner earns income as Chief Editor C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 5 of a magazine titled 'Thathwamacy' is completely incorrect. Petitioner would contend that the magazine was published by Sree Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath, a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It is also his submission that the publication 'Thathwamacy' is circulated free of cost to the devotees. The court below found that the publication contains lot of advertisements and the petitioner would have earned income from the advertisements. This finding is strongly opposed by the petitioner.” 9. As discernible from paragraph 9 of the order of this Court dated 24.05.2017 in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016 and O.P.(C). No.3247 of 2016, the learned counsel for the 1[st] judgment debtor sought an opportunity to establish before the execution court that the 1[st] judgment debtor has no means and he derives no income from the publication 'Thathwamacy'. After considering the rival contentions, this Court by the order dated 24.05.2017 set aside the impugned order of the execution court and remitted the matter to that court in order to give a further opportunity to both sides to prove their respective case. Paragraph 9 and also the operative portion of the order dated 24.05.2017 read thus; C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 6 “9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to establish that he has no means and he derives no income from the publication 'Thathwamacy'. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he would like to produce certain documents to establish the fact that the petitioner is earning income and he has means to pay the decree amount. According to the respondent, the petitioner is evading the process of law and wantonly defaulting payment. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the parties should be given a further opportunity to prove their respective case for which a remittal is required. The revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner and the respondent are directed to appear before the court below on 05.06.2017 and the court below shall afford the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence and dispose of the matter within a period of one month from the date appearance of the parties. The Original Petition also stands disposed along with this.” 10. After the order of remand, the decree holder was examined as PW1. The 1[st] judgment debtor and another were examined as DWs.1 and 2 and Ext.B1 to B9 documents were also marked on the side of the judgment debtors. After considering the rival contentions, the execution court passed the impugned order dated 30.06.2017, wherein it was found C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 7 that the plea of no means raised by the 1[st] judgment debtor cannot be accepted, since he is having sufficient income and means to pay off the decree debt and that, the 1[st] judgment debtor has intentionally neglected to pay the decree debt. Accordingly, the aforesaid execution petition was allowed, thereby permitting the decree holder for realisation of the decree debt by the arrest and detention of the 1[st] judgment debtor. 11. Section 51 of the Code deals with the powers of the court to enforce execution. Clause (c) of Section 51 provides that, subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may, on the application of the decree holder, order execution of the decree, by the arrest and detention in prison for such period not exceeding the period specified in Section 58, where arrest and detention is permissible under that section. Going by sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of the proviso to Section 51 and clause (b) of the proviso to that Section, where the decree is for the payment of money, execution by detention in prison shall not be ordered unless, after giving the judgment debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to prison, the C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 8 court, for reasons recorded in writing, is satisfied that, that the judgment debtor, with the object or effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree, has, after the institution of the suit in which the decree was passed, dishonestly transferred, concealed, or removed any part of his property, or committed any other act of bad faith in relation to his property; or that the judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, 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. Explanation to the proviso to Section 51 provides that, in the calculation of the means of the judgment debtor for the purposes of clause (b), there shall be left out of account any property which, by or under any law or custom having the force of law for the time being in force, is exempt from attachment in execution of the decree. 12. In **Abraham T.J. and another v. M/s. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. and another (2011** **(2) KHC 770)** this Court held that, under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code, in order to pass an order for arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison, the C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 9 executing court has to arrive at a finding that the judgment debtor has, or has had since the date of the decree, 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. Only on arriving at a finding as provided in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51 of the Code, the executing court would be justified in passing an order for arrest and detention of the judgment debtors in civil prison. Such an order cannot be passed on surmises and conjectures. There must be clear evidence to prove the ingredients of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 51. The object of detaining a judgment debtor in civil prison for non-payment of the amount decreed is not to punish him. Detention in civil prison is aimed at enabling the decree holder to realise the decree for payment of money. Mere inability to pay the money does not render the judgment debtor liable to be arrested and detained in civil prison. 13. Order XXI, Rule 40 of the Code deals with proceedings on appearance of the judgment debtor in obedience to notice or after arrest. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 40, when a judgment debtor appears before the court in C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 10 obedience to a notice issued under Rule 37, or is brought before the court after being arrested in execution of a decree for the payment of money, the court shall proceed to hear the decree holder and take all such evidence as may be produced by him in support of his application for execution, and shall then give the judgment debtor an opportunity of showing cause why he should not be committed to the civil prison. Subrule (2) of Rule 40 provides that, pending the conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1), the Court shall release the judgment debtor on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance when required and if the judgment debtor fails to furnish the security ordered, the court may order the judgment debtor to be detained in the custody of an officer of the court on the decree holder depositing in court the necessary amounts payable to the judgment debtor and the officer of the court in connection with such detention. Going by sub-rule (3) of Rule 40, upon the conclusion of the inquiry under sub-rule (1) the court may, subject to the provisions of Section 51 and to the other provisions of the Code, make an order for the detention of the judgment debtor in the civil prison and shall in that event cause him to be C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 11 arrested if he is not already under arrest. The proviso to subrule (3) makes it clear that, in order to give the judgment debtor an opportunity of satisfying the decree, the court may, before making the order of detention, leave the judgment debtor in the custody of an officer of the court for a specified period not exceeding fifteen days or release him on his furnishing security to the satisfaction of the court for his appearance at the expiration of the specified period if the decree be not sooner satisfied. 14. In **Rajappan v. Shaju (2009 (4) KHC 602)** this Court held that, burden cast on the decree holder is only to show that judgment debtor is possessed of means to discharge decree debt. The decree holder cannot be expected to prove the means with documentary evidence. Once the decree holder leads such evidence, the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to show that he is not possessed of means and thus incapable of discharging the decree debt. Paragraph 2 of the said ## judgment reads thus; "2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Previously the execution court after enquiry has passed an order that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means and a warrant was ordered against him for realising the C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 12 decree debt. The judgment debtor challenged that order by way of a revision in CRP 774/07 before this court. The revision was allowed and the case remitted for fresh consideration directing for affording opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their respective case. Pursuant to such remission the decree holder examined one witness stated to be the employer of the judgment debtor. It is submitted that in his examination in chief, he gave a version that the judgment debtor was employed under him as a worker in dealing with gold ornaments, but in the cross examination, he gave a different version that the judgment debtor was with him only for 2-3 months to learn the making of ornaments from gold. No evidence other than what was let in earlier was tendered by the judgment debtor after remission. The learned Munsiff after appreciating the evidence let in the enquiry concluded that the decree holder has not established that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means to discharge the decree debt. After going through the impugned order, I find the learned Munsiff is under a misconception that the decree holder is bound to prove that the judgment debtor is possessed of some landed properties or financial capacity by way of his employment or other means to discharge the decree debt. The burden cast on the decree holder is only to show that the judgment debtor is possessed of means to discharge the decree debt and he cannot be expected to prove the means of the judgment debtor with documentary evidence. Once the decree holder leads C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 13 such evidence the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to show that he is not possessed of means and thus incapable of discharging the decree debt. The exemption provided by the statute from arrest on a warrant for the default in discharging the decree debt is carved in favour of the judgment debtor and he who claims that benefit must show to the satisfaction of the court his incapacity and lack of means to discharge the decree debt. So the question to be considered is whether on the evidence tendered in the case the learned Munsiff was justified in entering a finding sustaining that plea of no means raised by the judgment debtor. Whatever be the reason for retraction of PW3, who is stated to be the employer of the judgment debtor, prevaricating from his version in examination of chief during his cross examination, his evidence would indicate that the judgment debtor worked under him, probably only as an apprentice for about 2-3 months to learn the making of gold ornaments. His continuous attending for such work is a circumstance from which it could be gathered that he is capable of doing that work and has reasonable ability to generate income for his livelihood. Further more, despite an opportunity given by this Court to lead further evidence in the enquiry he was satisfied with whatever evidence already in the case before the remission. So on the materials placed the acceptance of the plea of no means canvased by the judgment debtor by the learned Munsiff cannot be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to consider the matter afresh and pass C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 14 appropriate orders on the materials tendered, in the light of the observations made above. The revision is allowed." 15. In **Nizar v. M/s. Indus Bank Limited (2015 (5)** **KHC 925)** this Court held that, when the judgment debtor is arrested and produced, or surrenders before the court, Order XXI, Rule 40 of the Code comes into play. As the court has not proceeded to the stage of inquiry regarding his means to pay the debt, he has not lost his right to show cause why he should not be detained in jail for non-payment of the debt. Even if he does not show cause, he cannot be immediately ordered to be detained in jail unless the decree holder proves that the judgment debtor has the means to pay the debt. No means is pleaded or not, the court has to conduct an inquiry, in which the decree holder should adduce evidence to establish his allegation of the judgment debtor having the means to pay the debt. Rule 40(2) gives discretion to the court to release the latter on his furnishing security for his appearance or to detain him in the custody of an officer of the court during the pendency of the inquiry. The detention under this sub-rule is not for non-payment of the debt, but only to ensure his C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 15 presence during the inquiry. The inquiry contemplated in Rule 40(1) is mandatory. A bald statement in the decree holder's pleadings and evidence that the judgment debtor has properties or income to pay the debt is not sufficient. If, on inquiry, the court reaches the conclusion that the debtor is liable to be detained for non-payment of the decree debt, he shall be caused to be arrested so that he may be detained. 16. In **Jayadev Singh A.K. v. M.A. Majeeth (2010 (2) KHC 730)** this Court held that, the mere fact that the judgment debtor is the Managing Director of a company at one point of time, would not mean that he continues to be so as on the date of execution or that it would amount to an evidence that he has got sufficient means, but he refuses to pay. Even if it is assumed that he is the Managing Director of company, as to what is his income seems to be a mystery. Presumption regarding sufficient means of the judgment debtor from the fact that he is the Managing Director of a company is not at all justified. When a money decree is sought to be executed by arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison, it is the burden of the decree holder to establish that the decree holder has got the means to pay the decree debt and that C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 16 despite the means, he failed to discharge the decree. Before proceeding further on the execution petition for realisation of money, where the prayer is for arrest and detention in civil prison; and where the judgment debtor had denied his means to pay, it is for the court to satisfy that the judgment debtor has means to pay and still he refuses or neglects to honour the decree and in case detention is ordered, the court shall record reasons. That is the mandate of clause (b) to the proviso to Section 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Sending a judgment debtor, who has no means, to civil prison would tantamount to blatant violation of the high value of human dignity and the worth of the human person embodied in Article 21 read with Article 14 and Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Execution court should bear in mind that mere omission to pay the decree debt shall not result in arrest or detention of a judgment debtor in civil prison. While exercising the authority of the court in execution of a money decree, it is to see that poverty shall take no man to civil prison in execution of a money decree. 17. In the instant case, after the order of remand, the decree holder was examined as PW1, in order to make out a C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 17 _prima facie_ case as to the means of the 1[st] judgment debtor. PW1 has deposed that the 1[st] judgment debtor is running a bimonthly magazine namely 'Thathwamacy' and he is getting an amount of 1,00,000/- per month. He has also deposed₹ that the 1[st] judgment debtor is doing real estate business in the name of his wife, who is the 2[nd] judgment debtor. He has 37.80 Ares of property in Ayarkunnam Village with a two storied building and getting income from that property also. In addition to this, he is getting more than 10,000/- as monthly₹ pension. 18. The 1[st] judgment debtor was examined as DW1. The fact that, DW1 was the General Secretary of Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath and the Chief Editor of 'Thathwamasy', when he was originally examined before the execution court on 13.07.2016, is not in dispute. On 09.06.2017, when DW1 was examined after the order of remand, he produced Ext.B9 letter issued by one Adv.Mannadi Anil, who is stated to be the President of Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath, wherein it has been stated that the resignation of the 1[st] judgment debtor from the post of the General Secretary of Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 18 Parishath and Chief Editor of Thathwamasy, vide his letter dated 05.08.2016, has been accepted. However, the execution court noticed that, as per Ext.B3 special bulletin published by Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath, the President of the said Parishath is one K.R.Aravindakshan and not the aforesaid Adv.Mannadi Anil. The 1[st] judgment debtor could not produce any materials to show that Adv.Mannadi Anil is the President of the Parishath. Adv.Mannadi Anil, who is stated to be the President of the Parishath, was also not examined to prove Ext.B9. Moreover, in Ext.B9 Circular No.101/2016/SAB issued in the letterhead of Sabrimala Sree Ayyapa Dharma Parishath, the 1[st] judgment debtor is shown as the General Secretary of the Parishath. 19. One Unnikrishanan Arumanoor, who is stated to be the Joint Secretary of Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath, was examined as DW2. He has deposed that the Parishath is a charitable organisation and that the publication 'Thathwamasy' is being distributed free of cost. During cross examination, DW2 has admitted that income is being generated from the advertisements published in that magazine. DW2 has also admitted that the 1[st] judgment debtor is doing the day to day C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 19 affairs of the Prishath. The evidence of DW2 has shaken the very foundation of the plea of no means raised by DW1. The evidence of DW2 is sufficient to draw an inference that DW1 is even now doing the day to day affairs of the Prishath and that, substantial income is being generated from the advertisements published in 'Thathwamasy'. 20. As I have already noticed, in the order of the execution court which was impugned in C.R.P.No.328 of 2016, the execution court found that the 1[st] judgment debtor earns income as the Chief Editor of a magazine titled 'Thathwamacy' and that, he would have earned income from the advertisements, as the said magazine contains lot of advertisements. By the order dated 24.05.2017 this Court remanded the matter, since the learned counsel for the 1[st] judgment debtor sought an opportunity to establish before the execution court that the 1[st] judgment debtor has no means and he derives no income from the publication 'Thathwamacy'. However, the 1[st] judgment debtor could not produce any materials before the execution court that he derives no income as the Chief Editor of the publication 'Thathwamacy'. A copy of the publication 'Thathwamasy' for the month of April-May C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 20 2013, which was marked as Ext.B2, contains advertisements of well established concerns. 21. As per Ext.B2, the 1[st] judgment debtor is the Chief Editor of the magazine 'Thathwamasy'. Sabarimala Sree Ayyappa Dharma Parishath is a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. If there is any change in the office bearers of the Parishath, as contended by the 1[st] judgment debtor, he could have produced the returns or other documents submitted before the statutory authorities. If no income is generated from the publication 'Thathwamasy' and the 1[st] judgment debtor earns no income as the Chief Editor of that magazine, he could have produced the returns or other documents of the Parishath in order to substantiate the said contention. 22. Admittedly, the 1[st] judgment debtor who retired from service as Public Relations Officer in the Travancore Devaswom Board is getting a monthly pension of 9,000/-.₹ During cross examination, DW1 has admitted that he is the District President of the Kerala Congress (B) party. DW1 has also admitted that his wife, who is the 2[nd] judgment debtor, is C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 21 a retired High School Teacher; his daughter is an MD entrance student; and his son is a Bank employee. In an enquiry under Order XXI, Rule 40(1) of the Code, burden cast on the decree holder is only to show that judgment debtor is possessed of means to discharge decree debt. The decree holder cannot be expected to prove the means with documentary evidence. Once the decree holder leads such evidence, the burden shifts to the judgment debtor to show that he is not possessed of means and thus incapable of discharging the decree debt. 23. In the instant case, viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, it cannot be said that the decree holder, who was examined as PW1, has failed to discharge his initial burden in proving that 1[st] judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and despite the same he is evading the process of the court. The evidence of PW1, coupled with that of DW2, is sufficient to discharge the initial burden on the decree holder as to the means of the 1[st] judgment debtor to pay the decree debt. Once the decree holder lead evidence to discharge the initial burden, the burden shifted to the 1[st] judgment debtor to show that he is not possessed of means and thus incapable of discharging the C.R.P.No.421 of 2017 22 decree debt. Since the 1[st] judgment debtor failed to discharge that burden by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the execution court rightly found in the impugned order that, the 1[st] judgment debtor is evading process of the court, despite of having sufficient means to pay the decree debt. 24. The reasoning of the execution court in the impugned order is neither perverse or patently illegal warranting an interference of this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. It cannot also be said that while ordering warrant of arrest against the 1[st] judgment debtor, the execution court has committed any manifest error. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** ami/AV