IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4606 of 2009(W) AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 1738/06 IN OS.2151/2000 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR PETITIONER: --------------- MURALEEDHARAN S/O.KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, MADATHISSERY HOUSE VELLANIKKARA DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU T.K. SMT.MADHURI ANAND RESPONDENT: --------------- VENUGOPALAN S/O.GOVINDA NAIDU, KAKKASSERYKKALAM HOUSE MUNNUTHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 4606 OF 2009 W ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th February, 2009 JUDGMENT In execution of the decree for money in O.S.No.2151 of 2000, the respondent filed E.P.No.1738 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, praying for realization of the decree amount by arrest and detention of the writ petitioner in civil prison. The writ petitioner appeared and pleaded no means. He stated that he has no job and no source of income and that he is unable to pay the decree debt. 2. The amount claimed in the Execution Petition is Rs.30,148/-. To prove the means, the decree holder adduced evidence as PW1. He stated that the writ petitioner/judgment debtor is a building contractor under whom the decree holder had occasion to work. The judgment debtor has an yearly income of Rs.4 lakhs. It is stated by the decree holder in evidence that the judgment debtor has purchased properties in the name of his wife. However, this contention is not proved. The court below accepted the oral evidence of the decree holder and held that the judgment debtor has the means to pay the decree debt. The court below also took note of the absence of any evidence on the side of the judgment debtor. In the nature of the evidence adduced by the decree holder, the W.P.(C) NO.4606 OF 2009 W :: 2 :: court below naturally expected the judgment debtor to adduce evidence so that the court below could consider the evidence available in the case to arrive at a correct finding on the question whether the judgment debtor has the means or has had since the date of the decree the means to pay the decree debt. The judgment debtor kept away from the Court and did not make himself available for giving evidence. The court below rightly came to the conclusion that the judgment debtor has the means to pay the decree debt. There is no case for the judgment debtor that he has offered any amount to the decree holder. That means, there is a wilful refusal also. The issue of warrant for arrest of the petitioner/judgment debtor was, therefore, justified. No interference is called for in the Writ Petition to that extent. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner may be afforded an opportunity to pay the decree debt in instalments. The respondent is not before Court and the Writ Petition is not admitted. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account the fact that the petitioner is aged more than 60 years, I am inclined to grant two months' time to the petitioner to pay off the decree debt. The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the executing court within a period of two weeks stating that he would pay the decree amount within a period of two months from today. If the petitioner W.P.(C) NO.4606 OF 2009 W :: 3 :: fails to file an undertaking as aforesaid, the benefit of granting two months' time will not be available in favour of the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/