IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2482 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- OS.449/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR .................... PETITIONER: ---------------- PARAMASIVAN,S/O.KURUSWAMI, RESIDING AT "SREYAS BHAVAN",ATHIKUZHI, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOZHIJAMBARA BRANCH,KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR TALUK PALAKKAD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI. T. SETHUMADHAVAN THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, ALONG WITH OPC.NO.2484/2011, OPC.NO.2486/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO. 2482/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF E.P. NO.51/2010 IN O.S. NO.449/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS TO EXT.P1 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) Nos.2482, 2483 & 2486 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 01st day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Respondent appears through counsel. 2. These Original Petitions are in challenge of the order issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner/judgment debtor, common in E.P. Nos.51, 50 and 52 of 2010 in O.S. Nos.449, 460 and 457 of 2006, respectively of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur. Grievance of petitioner is that he has been paying the decree debt in each execution petition at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. On 03.06.2011 he paid a further amount also. But notwithstanding that, executing court ordered warrant of arrest to the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned orders are bad in law. Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that even copy of the impugned orders are not produced and at any rate there is no reason to interfere with the same. 3. In the execution petitions respondent has stated that petitioner has sufficient means earning `50,000/- annually and apart from that, he has movable and immovable properties worth more than Rupees One lakh. I find from Ext.P2, objection that there is no denial of any of those allegations. In the circumstances stated by learned counsel for respondent and also since copy of the impugned orders are not produced I do not find O.P(C) Nos.2482, 2484 & 2486 of 2011 -: 2 :- reason to interfere with the orders issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requested that petitioner may be permitted to pay the balance amount due under the execution petitions in installments at the rate of `1,000/- per month as he was paying at that rate. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that if that request is allowed it will take several months to discharge the decree debt since altogether more than Rupees Three lakhs is due from the petitioner. 5. Having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that the proper course is to permit petitioner to request the executing court to allow him pay the amount in convenient installments after hearing counsel for respondent as well. Resultantly, these Original Petitions are disposed of directing that warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid execution petitions will stand in abeyance for a period of two months from this day, on condition that petitioner deposits in the executing court for payment to the respondent `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in each case within two weeks from this day. In case the said condition is violated it will be open to the executing court to proceed against petitioner pursuant to the finding already entered. Petitioner is permitted to urge his request for installment facility to pay off the amount due under the execution petitions O.P(C) Nos.2482, 2484 & 2486 of 2011 -: 3 :- in the executing court. If any such request is made the executing court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case after hearing learned counsel for respondent as well. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv