S.S. SatheesaChandran, J.

1. The revision is directed against an order passed by the learned Principal Munsiff, Irinjalakuda in E.P.No.1591/05 in O.S.No.714/04 where under the plea of no means canvassed by the judgment debtor was accepted. The decree holder has filed the revision impeaching the propriety and correctness of that order.

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 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 diferent ve