The petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P. No.24 of 2014 in O.S No.361 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Mavelikkara. The suit was filed by the respondent for the realisation of an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner/defendant. He claimed the amount on the basis of a cheque issued by the petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Executing Court directing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,41,890/- and the consequential issuance of warrant to detain him in civil prison for a period of 60 days. As per the decree dated 06.08.2004, the respondent/decree holder is entitled to realise a sum of Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from 10.07.2000 till the date of realisation of the decree debt from the petitioner/defendant and his assets. The petitioner/judgment debtor failed to pay off the debt. Hence the respondent herein filed Execution Petition seeking execution of decree dated 06.08.2004.

2. The petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 objection dated 20.01.2015 contending that the execution petition is not maintainable in law or on facts. It is stated that the judgment debtor is having no means to pay off the decree debt and that at present, he is holding no assets and is incapable of doing any job. It is also stated that he retired from the Postal Department owing to sufferance of various diseases and the monthly pension of Rs.12000/- is insufficient to meet the livelihood of the judgment debtor. Seven members are depending upon the judgment debtor for their livelihood. His mother is suffering from old age diseases, his wife is undergoing treatment for heart diseases at Sree Chithra Medical Centre, Thiruvananthapuram and his son is suffering from mental disorder. His daughter and grandchildren are also residing with him as she is deserted by her husband. He resides along with the family in a property owned by his wife.

3. The respondent has given evidence to the effect that the petitioner is getting Rs.12,000/- per month. So, the enquiry under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code was ordered so as to issue warrant of arrest against the petitioner. As part of the enquiry, decree holder's representative was examined as PW1 and the petitioner was examined as DW1. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the petitioner. The Executing Court after hearing the parties allowed the Execution Petition and issued warrant against the petitioner holding that he has got sufficient means to pay off the debt.

4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. I have gone through the records.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the pension amount cannot be treated as an income and the issuance of arrest warrant against him cannot be sustained.

6. The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner is getting Rs.12000/- as monthly pension and therefore, he is capable of paying the entire decree debts and that the petitioner's adamant attitude is to avoid payment of the decree debt. Now the only question which arises for consideration is whether the pension amount can be treated as the income of the petitioner so as to issue arrest warrant. The definition of 'pension' in English by Oxford dictionaries is that a regular payment made by the state to people of or above the official retirement age and to some widows and disabled people. The Pensions Act, 1971 (Act No.23 of 1871) was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to pensions and Grants by Government of money or land-revenue. A decree is the formal expression of an adjudication which, so far as regards the Court expressing it, conclusively determines the rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and may be either preliminary or final and it shall be deemed to include the rejection of a plaint.

7. Section 55 of CPC deals with the arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. Section 55(1) reads thus :

"55. Arrest and detention.-(1) A judgment debt