Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the first respondent bank.
2. The plea of no means raised by the revision petitioner/first judgment debtor has been turned down by the court below by the order impugned. The petitioner himself concedes in the Civil Revision Petition that stock-in-trade is readily available to be proceeded against. But there is paucity of evidence to hold that the business has been transferred to the mother of the revision petitioner as alleged.
2. The revision petitioner very much resides in his parental home as reflected in the affidavit accompanying the Civil Revision Petition. The revision petitioner had availed the loan contending that he is possessed of property worth over `20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only). No evidence has been let in to show that the petitioner has since alienated this property and has no wherewithal to pay with the decree debt.
2 C.R.P. No. 386/2014
3. The finding of the court below that the revision petitioner is possessed of sufficient means to pay the decree debt is well founded. The court below was not erred in directing the revision petitioner to be arrested and detained in civil prison in the circumstances.
4. I however permit the revision petitioner to pay the decree amount in six equal monthly instalments starting from 01.07.2014. The petitioner shall not be arrested and detained in civil prison if he pays the amount in instalments as directed. The coercive steps can be pursued against the revision petitioner if anyone of the instalments are defaulted by him.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed subject to the above clarification.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE