IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 265 of 2010(O) ------------------------ EA NO.2051/2007 IN EP NO.414/1199 IN OS.112/1994 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.G.THOMAS, S/O.M.V.GEORGE, RESIDING AT MAYALIL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU POST, THRISSUR - 680 652. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ELDHO, S/O.OLAPPURA VEETTIL VARGHESE, RESIDING AT CHAMMANAMKUNNIL, KANNAMBRA AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, S/O.NEELAKANDAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PORUVALIL HOUSE, THANIPPADAM, CHUVANNAMANNU P.O., THRISSUR. 3. BABY, S/O.POULOSE, RESIDING AT NALLIKUZHY HOUSE, POOVANCHIRA P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.265/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 7.9.2009 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED -DO- EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.10.2009 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 11.12.2009 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2009 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 2.11.2007 ISSUED BY THE AMALA CARDIAC CENTRE, THRISSUR. //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.265 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT This Writ Petition is at the instance of judgment debtor in E.P.No.414 of 1999 in O.S.No.112 of 1994 in the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thrissur. As the learned counsel for petitioner puts it, there was an exparte decree against petitioner for payment of Rs.1,45,000/- with interest and cost as provided in the decree. There was an attachment of the vehicle belonging to the petitioner before judgment. But the vehicle was released to the petitioner on executing kaichit on his undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the court. Since amount due under the decree was not paid respondent No.1 launched execution of the decree and there was a direction by the executing court to the petitioner to produce the vehicle which was attached and released to him on kaichit. Since that direction was not complied a warrant of arrest was issued to the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner had preferred an objection to the application but executing court issued direction to the petitioner to produce the vehicle in court. According to the learned counsel, vehicle was subject to hire purchase agreement and on account of default in payment of installments the financier seized the vehicle and hence petitioner was not able to WP(C) No.265/2010 2 produce the vehicle in court. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder stated that no objection had been preferred to the application in the executing court. 2. Even as per the statement of learned counsel for petitioner it would appear that counter to the application was preferred only on the day the order was passed, presumably after the passing of Ext.P2, order . It is not disputed that petitioner had not produced in court the vehicle released to him on kaichit. As per that kaichit he was bound to produce the vehicle in court as and when required. That was not complied. It is in these circumstances the impugned order was passed. There is no reason to interfere. 3. Learned counsel now seeks indulgence of the court. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already paid Rupees one lakh to respondent No.1 and that balance amount payable is Rs.2,80,000/-. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is prepared to pay the amount in installments. Learned counsel has highlighted difficulties being experienced by petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that petitioner is affluent enough to pay the amount due under the decree. I have heard counsel on both sides as to the grant of installment facility. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing learned counsel for respondent No.1 also I consider that it is just and proper to give petitioner some time to pay the amount due under the decree. WP(C) No.265/2010 3 Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is permitted to pay the balance amount due under the decree in ten (10) equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010 onwards. ii. The payment for the month of July, 2010 shall be made on or before 10th of that month. The installment for the subsequent months shall be paid on or before 5th of the month concerned. iii. Petitioner shall deposit the amount as aforesaid in the executing court for payment to respondent No.1 and with notice to counsel for respondent No.1. iv. In case the amount as aforesaid is not paid within the time granted or, there is default in payment of any two installments it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed with execution pursuant to the order under challenge. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks