IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 24061 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- OS.2411/2006 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DAVIS, AGED 50 S/O.IYYU LONAPPAN, THATTIL HOUSE, AVINISSERI VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.N.AJITH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- NEW MILLENIUM KURIES(P) LTD, THRISSUR, REP.BY CHUMMAR,S/O.CHACKUNNY, NELLISSERY HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.24061 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is in challenge of Ext.P4, order passed by the learned Munsiff, Chittoor in E.P. No.2123 of 2008 in O.S.No.2411 of 2006. Respondent sought execution of money decree proceeding against petitioner personally contending that in spite of having means petitioner neglected or refused to pay the decree amount. Representative of respondent gave evidence as P.W.1 and stated about means of petitioner including that petitioner has landed property. Learned Munsiff found means for petitioner and issued warrant of arrest against him. That order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel contends that finding of learned Munsiff is not correct. 2. Evidence of P.W1 and even statement made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner in the court below show that petitioner has landed property. It is taking that and evidence of P.W.1 in to account that executing court found means for petitioner. This Court in Kuppuswmay v. P.G. Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) stated that though initial burden of proving means (of judgment debtor) is on decree holder he is not W.P(C) No.24061 of 2010 -: 2 :- required to give evidence regarding all source of income of judgment debtor and that if some indication as to means of judgment debtor is given it is for the latter to rebut it. It is also stated that when judgment debtor owns a house normal presumption is that he is able to pay the amount either by sale of the house, mortgage or by creating encumbrance. Petitioner has not adduced contra evidence. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be given sometime to pay the decree debt since he is not able to raise the entire amount immediately. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to grant petitioner two months' time to pay the amount due under the decree but subject to conditions. Resultantly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Petitioner is granted two months' time from this day to discharge liability under the decree on condition that petitioner deposited Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) in the executing court for payment to respondent within three weeks from this day. I make it clear that it will be open to petitioner to make a request for installment facility in the executing court. In case condition for deposit of the amount is not complied or the entire liability is not discharged within two months (unless executing court gives W.P(C) No.24061 of 2010 -: 3 :- installment facility for payment of amount after hearing respondent also) it will be open to the respondent to proceed with execution pursuant to Ext.P4, order without further enquiry as to means of petitioner. Warrant issued against petitioner will stand in abeyance for a period of two months from this day or till default in deposit of the amount is committed whichever is earlier. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv