IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 16148 of 2004(V) -------------------------- OS.166/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------- KUTTILAKANDY BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KUNHIKANARAN, PANTHALAYANI AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SAROJ NIVASIL P.V.NARAYANAN, S/O. KELU KURUP, VIYYUR AMSOM,MANNAMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.16148/2004 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.174/02 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOYILANDY DTD. 16/10/02. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS EA 275/03 UNDER ORDER 47 RULE I CPC DTD. 1/09/02. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.A.275/03 DTD. 15/01/03. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A.275/03 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOYILANDY DTD. 10/12/03. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16148 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 16th January, 2008 JUDGMENT The judgment-debtor in a money decree, petitioner in this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is aggrieved by the order passed by the execution court directing his arrest and detention in civil prison. The petitioner resisted the prayer for arrest contending that he has no means to pay the decree debt. The E.P. claim was around Rs.One lakh. This court on 31.5.2004 admitted the Writ Petition and granted interim stay on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.10,000/- within three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to inform whether the above condition has been complied with by the petitioner. If the above condition has not been complied with, the order of stay has become inoperative and the Writ Petition itself would have become infructuous since the impugned order would have been implemented by this time. It is seen that another ground on which the execution petition was resisted by the petitioner is that he has preferred an appeal against the decree which was being executed. But significantly, the number of that appeal is not disclosed in the Writ Petition. If an appeal has actually been filed by the petitioner and the same has been admitted, W.P.C.No.16148/04 - 2 - it is open to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the court of appeal to have an early disposal of that appeal. The present Writ Petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions: The Execution Court will verify whether the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the decree within three months from 31.5.2004 and if it is seen that such remittance has been made by him, the court will permit him to make a further payment of Rs.15,000/- towards the decree debt within one month of the court receiving a copy of this judgment. If that payment is also made by the petitioner promptly, the court will entertain an application for instalment facility in the matter of discharging the balance decree debt by passing orders on that application with notice to the decree-holder. It is needless to mention that if in the meanwhile, the petitioner becomes successful in the appeal preferred against the decree, the appellate court decree will govern the issue. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE