IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 3 of 2011() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2010 IN EP.90/2009 IN OS.656/1995 of ADDL.SUB COURT,NORTH PARAVUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AUGUSTIN,S/O.JOSEPH,KOOTTALA HOUSE, THERUVALOOR,ALANGAD,NORTH PARAVUR. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNSON,S/O.MATHAI,VALAYIL HOUSE, AIRAPURAM,NORTH PARAVUR-683 513. BY ADVS. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR), SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.3 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 20th day of August, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.90 of 2009 in O.S.No.656 of 1995 of the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, North Paravur. Respondent was allowed to recover damages from the petitioner as per the decree. As per E.P.No.90 of 2009 the amount due was `.1,97,311/- with future interest. Respondent wanted personal execution against petitioner. Petitioner pleaded no means. Both sides adduced oral evidence. Executing court was impressed by the evidence of respondent and placing reliance on the decision in Kuppuswamy v. P.G. Menon (1992(2) KLT 203) found that respondent has adduced some evidence regarding means of petitioner, he was not able to rebut that evidence ad accordingly, issued warrant of arrest to the petitioner. Though, there is a contention against that finding, on hearing learned counsel and going through the order, I do not find reason to interfere. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel that pursuant to the order of this Court, petitioner has already deposited `.25,000/- in the executing court. Petitioner requests eight months' time to C.R.P.No.3 of 2011 -: 2 :- pay the entire amount. Having heard learned counsel on the difficulties of petitioner I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly this original petition is dismissed but, petitioner is granted eight (8) months' time to pay the amount due under the decree in the following manner: (i) Petitioner is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in eight (8) equal monthly installments beginning from 01.10.2011 provided that by the last installment, the entire amount due is paid. (ii) The payment/deposit in executing court, for such payment shall be made on or before the 5th of every month and in case that happens to be a holiday, payment/deposit shall be made on the next working day. (iii) In case there is default in payment of any two installment, it will be open to the executing court to proceed with execution pursuant to the finding entered regarding means without any further enquiry. (iv) Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance for the said period of eight (8) months or till default as aforesaid is committed, whichever is earlier. (v) The amount deposited by petitioner could be withdrawn by the respondent. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-