IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 24691 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 264/2006 IN OS.460/2004 of PRL.M.C.,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ VIJAYAN, S/O.CHAMAVALAPPIL VELAYUDHAN 42 YEARS, IRINJALAKUDA VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- IMMACULATE KURIES AND LOANS (P) LTD., IRINJALAKUDA. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Sd/- (M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.) //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24691 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by executing court in E.P.No.264 of 2006 in O.S.No.460 of 2004, on the file of Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda, directing his arrest and detention. The case of the petitioner is that he has filed a petition claiming 'no means' and also filed an application for permitting him to pay the decree debt in instalments and executing court was not justified in directing his arrest without passing orders on Ext.P3 application. Though petition did not produce the impugned order, he subsequently produced Ext.P5 order dated, 8.7.2008, which establishes that his plea of 'no means' was rejected and an order of arrest was passed. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the executing court. W.P.(C) No.24691/2008 2 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when petitioner is prepared to pay the decree debt in instalments and files an application before the executing court, the application should have been considered on merit and before considering the same, the order or arrest should not have been made. The decree was passed on 30.7.2005. Execution petition was filed in 2006. After the passing of the decree, petitioner is not entitled to contend that he is entitled to pay the decree debt in instalments. Even the executing court is not competent to pass order directing the decree to be paid in instalments without the consent of the decree holder, after the decree. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the executing court. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.