IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 CRP.No. 750 of 2008(E) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2008 IN E.P.2228/2004 IN OS.259/2002 OF II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONER/ JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -------------------------------------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O. MEERA HUSSAIN, KALLUPARAMBIL, KUNNATHUMKARA DESOM, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL. RESPONDENT/ DECREE HOLDER: ------------------------------------------------- VISRUTHA KURIES AND LOANS LIMITED, POOTHOLE, THRISSUR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO.750 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Petitioner suffered a decree for payment of money at the instance of the respondent. Since petitioner did not pay the amount due under the decree respondent initiated execution proceedings with a prayer to issue warrant to the petitioner. Petitioner filed counter statement contending that he has no means to pay the decree amount. Petitioner gave evidence as DW1. Based on that evidence, learned II Additional Munsiff, Thrissur found that petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt and directed the respondent to take steps for the issue of warrant to the petitioner. Petitioner is aggrieved by that order and has come up in revision. 3. Learned II Additional Munsiff has pointed out in the order under challenge that even as per the evidence of the petitioner, he had sold an item of property in the year 2005 for C.R.P.No.750/2008 - 2 - Rupees three lakhs. Petitioner claimed that property was sold to meet the treatment expenses of his mother. But treatment expenses came only to Rs.70,000/-. Learned counsel argued that there is a factual mistake in that the share of the petitioner in the sale consideration is only Rs.1,50,000/-. 4. I have gone through the order under challenge. It is on an appreciation of the evidence that the court found that petitioner neglected and refused to pay the decree amount though he had sufficient means. There is no illegality or irregularity committed by the court below requiring interference. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner requested for three months' time to pay off the entire decree amount and requested that the warrant may be kept in abeyance during the said period. 5. Since the petitioner has expressed his willingness to pay off the entire decree amount within a period of three months, I am inclined to grant time to the petitioner for that purpose. C.R.P.No.750/2008 - 3 - Resultantly, this C.R.P. is disposed of in the following line:- (i) Warrant ordered against the petitioner will be kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today on condition that petitioner shall pay the entire amount due under decree to the respondent within a period of three months from today. (ii) Petitioner will be at liberty to pay the entire amount under decree in monthly instalments (during the said period of three months). (iii) In case entire decree amount is not paid within the said period of three months, it will be open to the respondent to take steps for issue of warrant to the petitioner. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE skr // True copy // P.A. to Judge.