IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 CRP.No. 607 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 118/2006 IN ARC.1753/2004 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------ KODANATHU MUBASEER,AGED 30, S/O.UMMER,ULLANAM AMSOM,DESOM,PO ULLANAM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1,3: ----------------------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,PARAPPANANGADI CO-OP; SERVICE BANK,LTD.NO.F,2302,PARAPPANANGADI. 2. NAMBANKUNNATH HAMZA,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI,ULLANAM AMSOM DESOM,PO ULLANAM. 3. KODANATHU AYOOB,S/O.MUHAMMED,ULLANAM, AMSOM DESOM,P.O.ULLANAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 SMT.P.JAYALAKSHMI FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 608 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.607 & 608 OF 2009 (C) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 O R D E R C.R.P.No.607 of 2009 is filed by the 1st respondent in E.P.No.118 of 2006 in A.R.C.No.1753/04-05 of the Sub Court, Tirur. C.R.P.No.608 of 2009 is filed by the 1st respondent in E.P.No.128 of 2006 in A.R.C.No.1754/04-05 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirur. After considering both the execution petitions together, and the plea of no means canvassed by the judgment debtors resisting the execution, the execution court ordered for issuing warrant against them. Propriety and correctness of that common order passed against them is challenged by the respective petitioners in their revision petitions. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The only request canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is for an opportunity to discharge the decree debt in instalments. At the time of admitting these revisions, conditional stay was C.R.P.NOS.607 & 608 OF 2009 3 granted directing the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- each within the time limit fixed. Amount so fixed, it is submitted, had already been deposited before the execution court. The learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders has no objection in providing the instalment facility for discharging the decree debt. Considering the submissions made by the counsel on both sides, the revision petitioner in each case is directed to discharge the outstanding decree debt due from them at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month in five equal monthly instalments commencing from March, 2010 onwards. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 15th March, 2010 and the rest in the succeeding months on or before the date fixed above. In case, the 15th happens to be a holiday, the deposit shall be made on the next working day itself. In the event of default of even one instalment, it will be open to the decree holders to proceed against the defaulted judgment debtor for realisaiton of the outstanding decree debt in lump. The orders passed by the execution court directing the issue of warrant against the judgment debtors shall stand set aside C.R.P.NOS.607 & 608 OF 2009 3 subject to the condition that in the event of default of payment of the decree debt in instalments as undertaken, the court below shall straight away issue warrant against the judgment debtors for realisation of the decree debt. Subject to the above directions, the revisions are disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp