Court decisions must be grounded in substantial evidence; parties should be afforded the opportunity to present their case adequately.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 order of the learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor, whereby, he has been found to be a man of means, but deliberately avoiding payment under the decree in O.S.No.32/2016. Consequently, an order of arrest has been issued against him.

2. Sri.R.Divakaran Ramakrishnan – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that even though there was absolutely no evidence on record, but only the bad statement of the decree holder, the Execution Court found that his client is earning Rs.60,000/- as pension per month; and thus, having means to honour the decree. He submitted that this finding is wholly without basis and devoid of any cogent evidence; and therefore, that Ext.P7 order is untenable. He then made an alternate plea that if this Court is not inclined to accept the afore submission, then liberty may be reserved to his client to lead fresh evidence before the Execution Court, to establish that he does not have any means.

3. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, even though her client took the box as PW1 and was cross-examined, nothing was brought out by the petitioner to discredit his statement that the latter is drawing Rs.60,000/- as pension. She thus prayed that this Original Petition be dismissed.

4. I notice from the files that a report had been called for from the Execution Court, when this matter was listed before this Court on 11.08.2023.

5. The learned Judge has reported that the warrant of arrest against the petitioner has been recalled on the strength of the security offered by him, namely the title deeds of 8.97 cents of land in Vengola Village. It is also reported by the Judge that the matter is listed to 21.08.2023 for further hearing.

6. Evidently, therefore, Ext.P7 cannot now hold water;

and that the matter will have to be reconsidered and a fresh order issued by the Execution Court.

Resultantly, I set aside Ext.P7, adverting to the report of the learned Sub Judge; with a consequential direction to the said Authority to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh order after affording necessary opportunity to both sides.

This Original Petition is thus ordered.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE lsn APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1042/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S NO. 32/2016 OF HONOURABLE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 31.01.2019 Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S NO.

32/2016 OF HONOURABLE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 31.01.2019 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO. 18/2019 IN O.S. NO.

32/2016 FILED BY THE DECREE HOLDER DATED 11.04.2019 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN EP. NO, 18/2019 IN OS NO. 32/2016 OF HONOURABLE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 19.11.2022 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FIELD BY THE RESPONDENT IN OS NO.

32/2016 DATED 09.03.2017 Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER IN OS NO. 32/2016 DATED

01.08.2018 Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 27.03.2023 IN EP NO. 18/2019 IN OS NO. 32/2016 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.05.2023 IN EA NO 86/2023 IN EP NO. 18/2019 BEFORE THE SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR Exhibit P9 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SECURITY BOND FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR IN EP NO 18/19 IN O.S NO 32/16 Exhibit P10 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUB COURT PERUMBAVOOR DATED 27/6/2023 IN EP 18/19 IN OS NO.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE LSN