IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 397 of 2009() --------------------- EA NO.454/09 IN EP NO.78/2008 IN OS.153/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------- SATHEESHAN, S/O.ANDURUTHIL DAMODARAN, KADUKKACHUVADU DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ---------------------------- MICHEAL, S/O.KALLARACKAL JOSEPH, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR. ADV. SRI.K.M.ABDUL KADER SMT. FATHIMA PRIYADARSINI THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.397 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010. ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 30.06.2009 issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner for realisation of amount due to respondent as per the decree. According to the petitioner, executing court has committed an illegality in issuing warrant of arrest without any finding that petitioner willfully failed to pay the amount. 2. It is seen from the copy of proceedings produced along with this revision that on 30.06.2009 PW1 was examined in proof of the means and petitioner did not adduce any contra evidence. Executing court accepted evidence of PW1 and held that means of petitioner is proved and hence he has to be arrested. What is available is only evidence of PW1. Petitioner did not adduce any contra evidence. Executing court has accepted evidence of PW1. There is no reason to interfere with that. Another contention is that petitioner has been paying the decree amount in installments even on 30.06.2009 and hence it cannot be said that there was willful failure on the part of the petitioner. CRP No.397/2009 2 3. Mere fact that certain installment payments were made by the petitioner was not sufficient to show that there was no willful failure to pay amount due under the decree. There is a finding that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. In the absence of any other circumstance, inspite of having sufficient means petitioner has not discharged the liability that can only be taken as a willful failure. 4. Learned counsel states that petitioner, as condition for stay of order of arrest has deposited Rs.4,000/- in the executing court and he is prepared to pay the balance amount within six weeks. He prayed that the warrant of arrest be kept in abeyance during the said period of six weeks. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to allow that request. Resultantly, this revision petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is granted six weeks time from 01.06.2010 to deposit the balance amount due under the decree in the executing court. ii. During the said period of six weeks, the warrant of arrest will remain in abeyance. CRP No.397/2009 3 iii. If the entire amount due under the decree is not paid within the said period of six weeks, it will be open to the executing court to proceed further pursuant to the order dated 30.06.2009. iv. Amount if any deposited by petitioner in the executing court pursuant to the order of this Court can be withdrawn by the respondent. I.A.No.1905 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks