Judgment : 1. This review application is filed under O.47, Rule I read with Sec. 114 of Civil Procedure Code to reconsider the order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.2050 of 1994 in A.S.No.30 of 1994. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff/decree-holder. The respondent to this review application was an employee of the petitioner viz. Civil Supplies Corporation and there is an allegation that he misappropriated the funds of the Corporation to the tune of rupees six lakhs and odd and therefore for the realisation of this misappropriated amount a suit was filed against him in the civil court and the civil court has granted a decree in favour of the petitioner. As against the decree, the respondent herein has filed the appeal A.S.No.30 of 1994 and he was permitted to file the appeal as an indigent person for the reason that he has no sufficient means to pay the court-fee. The respondent in the said appeal filed C.M.P.No.2050 of 1994 for stay of the execution proceedings against him and this Court by its order dated 17.2.1994 has observed while making the interim stay absolute, “it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that he has been permitted to file the appeal as an indigent person and that he has no means to pay the decree amount, no counter has been filed. Therefore, interim stay is granted till the disposal of the appeal.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner decree holder would contend that the interim stay has been made absolute for the sole reason that counter was not filed in the C.M.P., but a common counter was filed in C.M.P.No. 12565 of 1993 for the dismissal of the petitioner seeking permission to file an appeal as indigent person and also for interim stay. As this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, the court thinking that no counter, was filed has allowed the interim stay making it absolute and it is a mistake. As this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court, the court thinking that no counter, was filed has allowed the interim stay making it absolute and it is a mistake. On a perusal of the counter which is found in page 7 of the second typed set filed by the petitioner the prayer is as follows: “For the reasons stated above it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the petition filed in CM.P.No.12566 of 1993 to permit him to file the appeal as an indigent person and dismiss the petition seeking interim stay in CM.P.No. 12566 of 1993 of the execution of the decree in O.S.No.52 of 1987 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram.” Therefore, the counter was filed in this Court seeking for dismissal of the petition and for permission to file the appeal as indigent person and also to dismiss the petition filed seeking interim stay. It appears from the counter that same number viz., 12566 of 1993 is repeated twice i.e., this number is mentioned both for the petition seeking permission to file the appeal as indigent person and also for the petition seeking interim stay. This also seems to be a mistake by giving the wrong number. However, it is clear that prayer therein is to dismiss the petition seeking the interim stay. So, from those common counter it is very clear that the petitioner herein had filed a counter seeking for the dismissal of the application for interim stay, though this common counter was filed in the other petition for permission to file the appeal as indigent person. Some how that was not brought to the notice of this Court while the interim stay application was taken for arguments. Therefore, this Court has observed that no counter was filed for the application seeking the interim stay. 3. Miss. Some how that was not brought to the notice of this Court while the interim stay application was taken for arguments. Therefore, this Court has observed that no counter was filed for the application seeking the interim stay. 3. Miss. Uma Venkataraman, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that there is no justification to interfere in the order of this Court invoking the jurisdiction under O.47, because this Court has already considered all the facts before granting the stay of execution and this Court has made the stay absolute as already the respondent has been found a person of no means and has been permitted to file the appeal as indigent person that this finding of that cannot be interfered with by way of the review application and therefore the petition itself is not maintainable. This Court has given two reason for making the interim stay absolute and they are: (1) the respondent/appellant has been found to be an indigent person and has no means to pay the decree amount; (2) no counter was filed by the decree-holder. Of these two grounds 1 have referred to about the second ground viz., the filing of the common counter. Therefore, the second ground mentioned by the Bench of this Court is a mistake on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner herein to bring to the notice of the court that common counter has been filed. 4. Then, coming to the first ground viz., the ground of permission to file the appeal as indigent person, the court has found in C.M.P.No. 12565 of 1993 that even assuming that the appellant is having property as stated above, he is not in a position to raise any loan on the same and pay the court-fee and accordingly the petitioner is not having sufficient means it pay the court-fee (page 15 of the second typed set). 5. The order of this Court reads that the collector has submitted a report showing that the appellant is owning property worth Rs. 1,25,000 and he has also constructed a building by raising a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from the Ramanathapuram Co-operative Housing Society and he is person with means, This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/judgment-debtor. 1,25,000 and he has also constructed a building by raising a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 from the Ramanathapuram Co-operative Housing Society and he is person with means, This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent/judgment-debtor. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for the respondent Miss Uma Venkataraman has given me the details of the loan outstanding, still due from the respondent to the Housing Society and according to her though he borrowed Rs.56,000 for the construction of the house, now the interest and the penal interest come in total to Rs.2,30,510 and the liability of the respondent/ judgment-debtor is very much on the property, so, she is not disputing the fact that the respondent/judgment-debtor is owning a property viz., a building worth Rs. 1,25,000. This Court while permitting the respondent to file the appeal as indigent person has not given any finding that the appellant has no means to pay court-fee. On the other hand it would observe as follows: “Even assuming that the appellant is having property as stated above, he is not in a position to raise any further loan on the same and pay court-fee.” So, taking the view that the respondent/judgment-debtor was not able to raise funds immediately on his property within the specified time prescribed for filing the appeal, he was treated as a person without means to pay court-fee. There is no finding by this Bench that the respondent/judgment-debtor has no property to pay court-fee but the view taken is that he was unable to raise any loan immediately on the property to pay court-fee. So, it cannot be stated that the respondent/judgment-debtor is a person without any means when especially the court has found that he is unable to raise funds immediately to pay the court-fee. 6. Insofar as the execution proceedings is concerned, it is not for the respondent to raise funds to discharge the decree, unless he was very much interested to discharge the loan. On the other hand the decree holder may sell the property by court auction, to satisfy the decree. 6. Insofar as the execution proceedings is concerned, it is not for the respondent to raise funds to discharge the decree, unless he was very much interested to discharge the loan. On the other hand the decree holder may sell the property by court auction, to satisfy the decree. Therefore, permission to file the appeal as an indigent person for the reason that he was unable to raise funds immediately for the purpose of paying court-fee within the time specified cannot be equated with the right of the decree holder to realise the fruits of the decree against the properly of the judgment-debtor. 7. For the argument sake, even if it is taken that the respondent/judgment-debtor has no means certainly he is entitled to file counter before the execution court stating that he has no means to pay the decree amount and the decree is not executable against him. Only if there is property available, the decree can be executed against the property or if no property available and the judgment-debtor has no means, he cannot be even arrested. Therefore if the stay is vacated, in no way, the judgment-debtor is going to be affected and he has got other statutory protections if the execution is levied against him. Any how as already found, the order making the interim stay absolute on the two grounds viz., not filing of the counter and passing of the order to file the appeal as indigent person cannot be grounds in this matter to grant stay of the execution. 8. This Court in Sellayya Pillai v. Devaraya Pillai (1972) 1 MLJ. 297 .has observed at page 300 while referring to another judgment in Catholicos v. Athanasius Catholicos v. Athanasius Catholicos v. Athanasius A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 736, wherein it is observed: “(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicants knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the fact of the record, and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial Committee, that the words any other sufficient reason mean a reason sufficient on ground at least analogous to those specified in the rule.” Therefore, if it is found that there was sufficient reasons for interference by review when especially the error has come to light, the court has jurisdiction to modify the earlier order. 9. Though the respondent is owning property, but unable to raise funds immediately it does not give him the privilege that execution shall not be levied against him. Secondly as a common counter as filed in another application which was not brought to the notice of this Court in the petition for interim stay the court has passed an order of stay making it absolute. Therefore, I feel that the above order has to be set aside when especially the respondent has protection to move before the execution court to plead the privilege as the person without means. 10. In the result, the review application is allowed setting aside the order of this Court making the say absolute. There will be no order as to costs. As it is the case of misappropriation and the petitioner/decree-holder, the employer of the respondent is trying to realise the misappropriated amount, the parties may move before the concerned Bench for taking up the appeal itself at an early date.