IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 CRP.NO. 360 OF 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2011 IN EP.2101/2009 IN OS.1030/2003 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SHAJI,S/O.KOTTILINGAL VELIKUTTY, ADATT VILLAGE,CHITTILAPPILLY DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER/IST JUDGMENT DEBTOR --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DHARMAPRIYA FINANCING COMPANY PTV.LTD, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,REP.BY MANAGING DIRECTOR,VISWAMBARAN,S/O.MUKKULAM KARAPPAN,PULLUR VILLAGE,MADATHIKKARA LANE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.PARANGANALI KRISHNAN, KOLAZHI VILLAGE,MINALUR DESOM,THRISSUR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.360 of 2011 & C.M.Appl. No.402 of 2011 in C.R.P. No.360 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of August, 2011 O R D E R In view of the decision I propose to take, notice to the first respondent-decree holder and the first judgment debtor is dispensed with. Heard counsel for petitioner. Delay involved in filing the revision is of 36 days. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petition and I am satisfied that reason for delay is explained. Hence delay is condoned. Application is allowed. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is in challenge of order dated March 18, 2011 in E.P. No.2101 of 2009 in O.S. No.1030 of 2003 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Thrissur. First respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money against petitioner and the second respondent. First respondent sought personal execution against petitioner and adduced evidence. Petitioner did not adduce contra evidence. Executing court, relying on the evidence of the first respondent found that petitioner, in spite of having sufficient means has refused to discharge the C.R.P. No.360 of 2011 -: 2 :- decree debt. Accordingly warrant of arrest was issued. Though it is contended that warrant of arrest is not justified I do not find reason to interfere with the order having regard to the circumstances stated. 3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner may be permitted to the discharge the decree debt in installments. Request for installment facility has to be made in the executing court and it is for the executing court to decide on that question after hearing counsel for first respondent also. To facilitate that, I am inclined to grant some time to the petitioner. Resultantly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing that warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance for a period of one month from this day or till default in making payment of amount as mentioned below is committed, whichever is earlier subject to the following conditions: (a) Petitioner shall deposit in the executing court `15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) in E.P. No.2101 of 2009 in O.S. No.1030 of 2003 within two weeks from this day, for payment to the first respondent. C.R.P. No.360 of 2011 -: 3 :- (b) In case the above condition is violated it will be open to the executing court to proceed with the execution pursuant to the impugned order. (c) It is open to the petitioner to request the executing court for permission to pay the balance amount due under the decree in installments and if any such request is made, the executing court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders after hearing learned counsel for the first respondent also. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv