IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1334 of 2009(H) OS.165/2005 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM PETITIONER: V.SURESHKUMAR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT K.S.R.T.C.,CHIEF OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER SRI.M.R.SARIN PANICKER RESPONDENTS: 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE,VIKAS BHAVAN BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. LATHA KUMARI,W/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, SELECTION GRADE CLERK, K.S.R.T.C. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CENTRAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. V.SATHYADEVAN,INSPECTOR,K.S.R.T.C, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 1334 OF 2009 H ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th February, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the first judgment debtor in O.S.No.165 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was filed by the first respondent for realisation of money. The suit was decreed. The petitioner is an employee in the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. The decree holder filed Execution Petition for execution of the decree by arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. The court below by the order dated 18.12.2008, ordered to issue arrest warrant against judgment debtors 1 and 3. Since the petitioner is working in KSRTC, the court below issued a direction to the Managing Director of KSRTC to “relieve the first judgment debtor from service and report compliance” so as to enable the Amin to arrest and produce him before Court. The case of the petitioner is that the direction to relieve him from service was illegal. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, decree holder, contended that the direction to relieve the petitioner from service is not to relieve him from service in the manner in which it is understood by the petitioner and such a direction was issued only to facilitate the Amin to arrest the petitioner in execution of the decree. 2. An interim order dated 22.1.2009 was passed by this Court W.P.(C) NO. 1334 OF 2009 :: 2 :: granting stay of execution of the decree on condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- on or before 6.2.2009. It was also noticed that the request of the petitioner to discharge the decree debt in instalments would be considered after payment of the sum of Rs.25,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has deposited Rs.25,000/-, as directed by this Court. Learned counsel for the first respondent has not received any instruction on that aspect. For the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, I accept the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited Rs.25,000/- as aforesaid. 3. The balance decree amount payable would come to more than Rs.75,000/-. The only prayer made by the petitioner is to permit him to pay the decree amount in instalments covering a period of one year. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the request made by the petitioner is not reasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a breathing time can be given to the petitioner to pay the decree amount in instalments covering a period of six months. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows: W.P.(C) NO. 1334 OF 2009 :: 3 :: a) The petitioner shall deposit before the executing court, for payment to the first respondent/decree holder, the decree amount in six equal monthly instalments. b) The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15.3.2009. c) The balance five instalments shall be paid on or before 15th of the succeeding months. d) If default is committed in payment of any of the instalments as aforesaid, the order dated 18.12.2008 will be in operation and the executing court shall issue warrant for arrest of the petitioner. e) If the petitioner duly complies with the aforesaid direction, the execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance by the executing court against judgment debtors 1 and 3. f) The aforesaid directions would be available to the judgment debtors only if the petitioner has complied with the interim order dated 22.1.2009. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/