AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Chitambaresh, J.—I am afraid that I cannot countenance the arguments of the review petitioner. He is attempting to have a re-hearing of the Civil Revision Petition disposed of on merits. I am fortified in this view by the following decisions:
Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs.,
Haridas Das Vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others,
Chandran v. Sheela Amma (1992 (2) KLT 215)
The finding rendered in the order dated 13.7.2012 disposing of the Civil Revision Petition holding that the judgment debtor has the means to pay the decree debt is rested on evidence. The fact that a portion of the property was re- purchased in the name of the wife of the judgment debtor after the decree is a conceded fact. Similarly the existence of a Flour Mill in that property (alleged to be not working) is also a conceded fact. The further fact that the daughter of the judgment debtor is studying for Medicine cannot be lost sight of.
There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record in the order sought to be reviewed. The review petition fails and is dismissed.