IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 628 of 2009 --------------------- OS.478/2000 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ------------------------------------------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, ANNANATTU VEETTIL, EDAVATTOM MURIYIL K.S.MANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SUNU P.JOHN MR.C.DEVANAND RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ----------------------------- P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR BHAVANAYIL VADAKKUM BHAGAM MURI VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.628 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 27.8.2005 in E.P.No.116 of 2004 in O.S.No.478 of 2000 passed by the learned Munsiff, Vaikom. Petitioner is the judgment debtor proceeded against in a decree passed in a suit for money. The decreetal amount as seen from the order was only Rs.4,800/- and the decree provided for its realisation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till satisfaction. The judgment debtor is stated to be an Ayurvedic Doctor and the decree passed in the suit instituted as early in 2000 remain still to be satisfied. Previously an execution petition was filed by the decree holder in which the steps taken for arrest of the judgment debtor were turned down as at that stage the execution court accepted the plea of no means canvassed by him. Consequently, that execution petition was also dismissed. Nearly four years later, decree holder preferred the present execution petition presumably setting forth a case that there is change of circumstance. The execution of the decree was resisted by the judgment debtor raising again a plea C.R.P.No.628 of 2009 2 of no means. In the enquiry on that objection so canvassed the decree holder and also the judgment debtor were examined. On the basis of the materials produced in the enquiry, the execution court negatived the plea of no means canvassed by the judgment debtor and ordered to issue warrant. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in this revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent/decree holder is necessary, and it is dispensed with. 3. After dismissal of the previous execution petition accepting the case of the judgment debtor that he had no means to pay the decree debt there was no change of circumstance and, further the judgment debtor is now afflicted with serious ailments rendering him incapable of earning any income, is the submission of the learned counsel. To substantiate that the judgment debtor suffers from ailments learned counsel seeks to place reliance on some of the medical prescriptions, copies of which are tendered as annexures to the revision. On examining of the propriety and correctness of the order passed by a C.R.P.No.628 of 2009 3 subordinate court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction the materials sought to be newly introduced cannot at all be taken into consideration. Perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Sub Judge holding that the judgment debtor is possessed of sufficient means and that his plea of no means is baseless and in fact there is change of circumstance after the dismissal of the previous execution petition, I find there is no illegality or impropriety. No interference with that order by exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/judgment debtor realising the insurmountable difficulty in assailing the order passed by the execution court prayed for indulgence of this Court to pay the decree debt in instalments submitting at present the liability has mounted to Rs.14,000/-. It is further submitted that the wife and daughter of the judgment debtor had met with an accident involving a motor vehicle and the petitioner has to incur a lot expenditure for their treatment. As I find no reason to doubt the submission of the counsel as above, I direct the court below to keep in abeyance the execution of the warrant for a period of three weeks on condition of the petitioner depositing C.R.P.No.628 of 2009 4 one half of the outstanding amount due, tentatively fixed at Rs.7,000/-, within the above period of three weeks. In case such amount is not deposited within the period provided by this Court, the court below shall straight away proceed to execute the warrant. In the event of payment of one half of the outstanding amount due, which is tentatively calculated as Rs.7,000/- within the time stipulated, three weeks, he shall be permitted to discharge the balance decree debt in four instalments at the rate of Rs.2,000/- each per month. Such instalment payment, subject to payment of one half of the amount within three weeks, shall commence from the month of January, 2010 and the instalment payment has to be made on or before 15th of that month. Subsequent instalment payments should also be made on or before 15th of the succeeding months. In case 15th happens to be a holiday, payment has to be made on the next working day. In the event of default of one instalment it will be open to the decree holder to proceed for realisation of the outstanding amount due under the decree and in that case the court below shall straight away issue warrant for arrest of the judgment debtor without any application from the decree holder. Whatever C.R.P.No.628 of 2009 5 be the outstanding amount due shall be cleared in the last and fourth instalment irrespective of the sum fixed by this Court and the entire outstanding decree debt has to be then fully satisfied by the judgment debtor. Revision disposed as indicated above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-