IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25606 of 2010(O) ---------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.55/2010 IN OS.496/2007 of PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.NATARAJAN CHETTIAR, AGED 44 YEARS, MANIYANKAD, PUTHOOR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RAMACHANDRN, S/O. M.VELAYUDHAN AGED 48 YEARS, KUNJAMMA NIVAS, SEKARIPURAM, PUTHOOR AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678010 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25606 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Notice to respondent is dispensed with in view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition. 2. Judgment debtor in E.P.No.55 of 2010 in O.S.No.496 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Palakkad challenges Ext.P1, order issuing warrant of arrest to him on a finding that inspite of having means he has refused/neglected to pay amount due under the decree. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that there is no sufficient evidence to show that petitioner has means and hence order issuing warrant of arrest is illegal. 3. Respondent/decree holder has given evidence as PW1 and stated that petitioner is conducting a tailoring shop at Puthoor and earning Rs.10,000/- per annum. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that PW1 was not able to withstand cross examination and that his evidence regarding job of petitioner is only hearsay. Learned Munsiff has observed that even though PW1 was challenged in cross examination petitioner did not mount witness box to give contra evidence. Petitioner is capable of giving evidence as to his means or lack of means. This Court in Kuppuswamy v. P.G.Menon (1992(2) KLT 203) has held that strict proof of every details is not necessary and if some evidence indicating means of the judgment debtor is given it is then the WP(C) No.25606/2010 2 responsibility of judgment debtor to rebut the evidence. Petitioner has not gone to the witness box to swear that he has no means in the way stated by the respondent. What is available is only the evidence of PW1. Having heard learned counsel for petitioner I am not inclined to think that order passed by the executing court is erroneous calling for interference in the Writ Petition in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 4. Learned counsel requests that petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in installments since order of court below is not being interfered with. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to grant three months time to the petitioner from this day to pay the amount due under the decree but subject to conditions. Resultantly this Writ Petition is dismissed. But, petitioner is granted three months time from this day to discharge the decree debt subject to the condition that he shall deposit in the executing court Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand and five hundred only) within three weeks from this day for payment to respondent. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to request the executing court to permit him pay the amount in installments and if any such request is made executing court shall consider that request after hearing counsel for respondent also. In case the deposit as aforesaid is not made within the prescribed time, or the liability is not discharged within the said period of three months as granted hereby (unless in the meantime executing court grants installment facility to pay the amount due under the decree) it will be open to the WP(C) No.25606/2010 3 respondent to proceed against petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1, order without any further enquiry as to the means of petitioner. In case any request for installment facility is made by the petitioner, executing court shall consider the same untrammelled by the observations made herein or time limit prescribed for payment of the amount. Warrant of arrest issued against petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of three months or till the default is committed as above stated whichever is earlier. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks