IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 655 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/09/2008 IN EP.369/2007 IN OS.62/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): DEFENDANT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADV.R.P.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI, XXXVII 241418, P.S.ROAD, AZAD ROAD, KOCHI 17, NOW RESIDING AT CHETTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEVARMATOM ROAD, VENNALA P.O. COCHIN-28 (PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT MANGALASSERIL HOUSE, NEAR GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, VENNALA, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-28). BY (PARTY-IN PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF/DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ S.AMBIKA, D/O.SARADAMMA, PADMANILAYAM, PUTHEN CHANDAYIL, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.655 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of July, 2010 ORDER Annexure-A1, order dated 20-09-2008 in E.P.No.369 of 2007 in O.S.No.62 of 2000 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Ernakulm is under challenge. According to the petitioner, he has no means to discharge liability under the decree and the executing court went wrong in passing Annexure-A1, order issuing warrant of arrest to him. 2. I have heard petitioner who appeared in person and counsel appearing for respondent/decree holder. Though various contentions are raised as to the correctness of Annexure-A1, order now the only request of petitioner is to grant him sometime to discharge the liability. Other contentions raised in the C.R.P are not being perused. It is seen that this court, as per order dated 30-01-2007 in W.P.(C).No.34579 of 2006 had granted installment facility to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case including source of income of the petitioner I do not also find reason to interfere with Annexure-A1, order. 3. So far as request for installment facility is concerned, C.R.P.No.655 of 2009 : 2 : petitioner requested that he may be permitted to pay the amount in ten (10) monthly installments. Learned counsel for respondent is not agreeable to granting that much time since on earlier occasions petitioner was given facility to pay the amount in installment but, that has not been fully complied. 4. It is admitted by the respondent also that of the amount due, Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only) has been paid by petitioner and received by the respondent. Having regard to the circumstances stated by petitioner and considering the views of respondent, I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay the balance amount due under the decree in eight monthly installments beginning from 01-09-2010 onwards. Resultantly revision petition is dismissed. But petitioner is permitted to pay balance amount due under the decree in eight (8) monthly installments beginning from 01-09-2010. Payment to be made each month shall not be less than Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) provided that by the last installment the entire balance amount is paid. The amount shall be deposited in the executing court or, paid to the respondent through counsel against proper receipt before the fifth (5th) of every month and certified in the proper manner in the executing court. In case C.R.P.No.655 of 2009 : 3 : petitioner commits default in payment of any two installments or the entire balance amount is not paid within the time granted hereby it will be open to the respondent to proceed with execution pursuant to Annexure-A1, order without further enquiry regarding means of petitioner. Warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall stand in abeyance during the period granted hereby or till default is committed as above stated, whichever is earlier. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-