IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 243 of 2010(O) ------------------------ OS.562/1997 of ADDL.M.C.,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------------------ M.C.ANILKUMAR, MUZHUKKATTU KALAYIL, SOUTH MANORAMA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KUNNATHUKALATHIL FINANCIERS, KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, K.V.VISWANATHAN, KUNNATHUKALATHIL, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, PIN 686 563. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.243 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.172 of 2003 in O.S.No.562 of 1997 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kottayam is the petitioner before me. Respondent has obtained a decree for payment of money against petitioner on 20-05-1998 and in 2003, respondent launched execution. There was a decree before personal execution against petitioner which resulted in an order of issue of warrant as per order dated 13-08-2007. Petitioner challenged that order in C.R.P.No.941 of 2007 and there was a remand. Thereafter, petitioner examined the medical officer who allegedly was treating him for his alleged illness. Again, executing court found that petitioner has sufficient means and ordered warrant of arrest. That order was challenged in C.R.P.No.569 of 2008. The revision petition was dismissed on merit also observing that after the disposal of the suit family property of petitioner was disposed of. Thereafter petitioner filed Ext.P7, application for permission to pay the amount in monthly instalments of Rs.2,000/-. That petition was closed as per Ext.P8, order since respondent/decree holder was not amenable to that O.P(C).No.243 of 2010 : 2 : suggestion. Petitioner filed Ext.P9, application for review which ended in a dismissal as per Ext.P10, order. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel states that petitioner is not able to pay the entire amount in lump sum and recently his elder son got employment as a Mechanic at Kottayam and accordingly he is able to pay Rs.2,000/- per month. 2. The amount due to the respondent now crosses almost Rs.One Lakh. The decree was obtained as early as on 20-05-1998. Executing court has disallowed prayer for instalment payment on the face of objection raised by respondent/decree holder. In such a situation question of installment facility in this proceeding does not arise. But Having regard to the circumstances stated by petitioner, I am inclined to give petitioner some time to pay the amount due under the decree. Resultantly this petition is dismissed but, petitioner is granted four (4) months' time from today to pay the amount due under the decree subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall within two months from this day deposit Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) in the executing court for payment to respondent. O.P(C).No.243 of 2010 : 3 : (ii) The entire balance amount due under the decree shall be deposited in the executing court within a period of four months from this day as aforesaid. (iii) In case petitioner fails to deposit the sum of Rs.15,000/- as aforesaid or, to clear the entire liability within the time granted hereby, it will be open to the executing court to proceed with personal execution pursuant to orders already passed without any enquiry as to means of petitioner. (iv) Warrant of arrest against the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of four months or, till default in deposit of Rs.15,000/- as above stated is committed whichever is earlier. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-