IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2011 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1461 of 2011 E.P.NO.18 OF 2008 IN OS.NO.155/1988 of MUNSIFF COURT,HARIPAD PETITIONER: 6TH JUDGMENT DEBTOR: VASUDEVAN SARANGADHARAN, VADAKKETHALAKKAL VEETTIL, MUTHUKULAM THEKKU MURI, MUTHUKULAM. BY ADVS. M/S.R.SUNIL KUMAR & A.SALINI LAL RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER: JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2,5,9 TO 16: 1. MALATHYAMMA, W/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, PILAVILAYIL, MUTHUKULAM. 2. RENJITH KUMAR, -DO- 3. DAMODHARA KURUP GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KANJIRATHIL VEETTIL, EX-MEMBER OF WARD NO.9 OF MUTHUKULAM PANCHAYATH, MUTHUKULAM. 4. SOBHANAKUMAR, THARAYIL VEETTIL, MUTHUKULAM PANCHAYATH, MUTHUKULAM. 5. GOVINDHAN BHARGAVAN, KARUVADIPADEETTATHIL MUTHUKULAM PANCHAYATH, MUTHUKULAM. 6. CHANDRIKA KUMARI, D/O.KRISHNA PILLAI, KUNNAMPALLIL VEETTIL, -DO- 7. AMBILI, -DO- 8. SIVAKUMAR, -DO- 9. JAYAKRISHNAN, -DO- 10. PADMANABHAPANICKER, -DO- 11. SARASWATHIAMMA, -DO- 12. SASIKUMARI, -DO- THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 1461 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the 6th judgment debtor in O.S.No.155 of 1988, Munsiff's Court, Harippad. A decree for mandatory injunction to restore the property in the manner indicated in the decree was passed. The plaintiff was also allowed to realise a sum of `3,500/- as damages. 2. E.P.No.18 of 2008 was filed for realisation of the compensation and costs by arrest and detention of the petitioner in civil prison. 3. The petitioner filed objection stating that he has no income or property. He used to perform 'Bhagavatha Parayana' in temples and that he has no income therefrom. 4. The second decree holder was examined before the executing court. He stated that the petitioner herein gets `350/- to O.P.(C) NO.1461 OF 2011 :: 2 :: `500/- for performing 'Bhagavatha Parayana' in temple. It is also stated in the evidence that the petitioner has constructed a house spending `5,00,000/-. There was no cross examination of the second decree holder. No evidence was also adduced by the petitioner. The court below rejected the contentions put forward by the petitioner and directed warrant of arrest to be issued against the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this Original Petition. 5. In spite of the specific evidence on the part of the decree holder, the judgment debtor has not adduced any evidence in the case. From the materials on record, the court below came to the conclusion that the petitioner has means to pay the decree debt. It cannot be said that the order passed by the court below is illegal and without jurisdiction. The amount involved is only `5,886/-. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned. The original Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted three month's time to pay the decree amount. The warrant, if any, issued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for three months. If the petitioner fails to pay the decree O.P.(C) NO.1461 OF 2011 :: 3 :: amount within three months, the order passed by the court below will be executed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/