IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 18359 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.563/2003 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- REGHUNANDANAN, AGED 50, S/O.POLAKKULATHU NARAYANAN, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR), MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. ALIDE ENTERPRISES, THRITHALLUR, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON LEELA, W/O.PANAKKAPARAMBIL SANKARANARAYANAN, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, VADANAPPALLY DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAJENDRAPRASAD, S/O.POLAKKULATHU NARAYANAN, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 3. BABY @ GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.PUZHAKKADAVIL KUMARAN, SREENARAYANAPURAM VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.18359 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction permitting the petitioner to liquidate the liability, which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 by taking note of Exts.P3 to P8, in more instalments than ordered in Ext.P2, with the amount of instalment being less, in the interest of justice.” 2. Petitioner is the second judgment debtor in E.P.No.352 of 2003 in O.S.No.563 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. Previously, petitioner has challenged an order passed in the execution petition before this Court in revision as C.R.P.No.850 of 2008 and that was disposed of by order dated 16.12.2008. Ext.P2 order was passed by this Court extending opportunity to the petitioner/second judgment debtor to pay the decree debt in instalments. In the present writ petition, petitioner seeks modification of that order seeking enlargement of time for instalment payment. W.P.(C).No.18359 of 2009 - O 2 3. Having regard to the fact that, earlier, Ext.P2 order was also passed without notice to the decree holder, I find there is no justification to modify the rate of instalment and the fixation made thereunder entertaining the present writ petition moved by the petitioner. The writ petition lacks in merit and it is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Ext.P2 order, now the execution court is also not prepared to accept any settlement between the parties. I make it clear that Ext.P2 order will not stand in the way of the parties entering any settlement for discharge of the decree debts as agreed between them. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-