IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 1822 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- E.P.NO.252/2010 IN OS.NO.499/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER ---------------------- SANTHOSH, KULANGARA CHATHUKUTTY, KUZHIKATTUSSERY DESOM, THAZHEKKAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SMT.M.BINDU DAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- RAVI MOHAN, S/O. PATTATHIL KRISHNA MENON, AZHAKAM DESOM, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN-691 585. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1822/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE E.P.NO.252/2010 IN O.S.NO.499/2006 DATED 1/10/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT IRINJALAKUDA DATED 1/3/2011 IN E.P.NO.252/2010 IN OS.NO.499/2006. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP.NO.252/2010 IN OS NO.499/2006 DATED 11/4/2011 OF THE ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1822 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P3, order dated 11.04.2011 in E.P.No.252 of 2010 in O.S.No.499 of 2006 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is under challenge. By the said order, executing court found means for petitioner and issued warrant of arrest for realisation of the amount due under the decree. 2. It is contended that finding regarding means is not correct. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the mere fact that petitioner is a salaried man is not sufficient to hold that he has sufficient means. It is requested that if at all the order is sustained, petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in installments within a period of one year. 3. Learned counsel for respondent supported the order, objected to the installment facility and contended that if at all this Court is inclined to grant installment facility, it may be limited to a period of six months. 4. So far as finding regarding means is concerned, it is seen that executing court has acted on Ext.A1, salary certificate and failure of petitioner to let in rebuttal evidence. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the finding regarding means in Ext.P3, order. OP(C) No.1822/2011 2 5. Having regard to the situation of petitioner stated by the learned counsel and having heard learned counsel for respondent, I am inclined to permit petitioner pay the amount due under the decree in ten (10) equal monthly installments subject to conditions. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of as follows: While no interference is required with the finding of executing court as to means of petitioner, he is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in installments as follows: (a) petitioner is permitted to pay/deposit in the executing court for payment to the respondent amount due under the decree in ten (10) equal monthly installments beginning from 05.01.2012 provided that by the last installment the entire balance amount due is paid. (b) Payment/deposit in the executing court as aforesaid shall be made on or before 10th of each month and if that day happens to be a holiday, such payment/deposit shall be made on the next working day. OP(C) No.1822/2011 3 (c) In case of any two default in payment/deposit of the installments it will be open to the executing court to proceed with personal execution pursuant to Ext.P3, order without any further enquiry regarding means of petitioner. (d) Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the period above stated or till default as aforesaid is committed, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks