ORDER

Judgment debtor No.3 challenges the order issuing warrant against him on a finding that inspite of having sufficient means he has refused or neglected to pay the amount due under the decree. Learned counsel for petitioner/judgment debtor No.3 states that it is without any evidence that executing court has passed the impugned order dated 05.12.2009. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions inJolly George Varghese v. The Bank of Cochin ( AIR 1980 SC 470 ) and Jayadev Singh A.K. v. M.A.Majeeth ( 2010 (2) KHC 730 ). Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder contends that the order is legal and proper and required no interference.

2. There can be no dispute that execution by arrest of the judgment debtor is possible only when the decree holder is able to prove that inspite of having means, judgment debtor has refused/neglected to pay the amount due under the decree. Initial burden of proving that judgment debtor has means is squarely on the decree holder. Question is whether that initial burden has been discharged by the decree holder, the onus if any is shifted to the judgment debtor and if so, that onus is discharged. A representative of respondent has given evide