IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 225 of 2010(O) ---------------------- E.P. NO. 76/07 IN OS.579/2002 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVALLA ............... PETITIONER : ------------------ P.KUNJAN, OTTATHIL VEETTIL, VALLAMKULAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN SRI.K.N.GOVINDANKUTTY MENON SRI.S.MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. K.PADMAKUMAR,S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY PUTHUVEETTIL, VALLAMKULAM P.O. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 2. SOUTH INDIAN BANK, ERAVIPEROOR BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS MANAGER' R2 BY ADV. SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE, SC THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.225 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, a pensioner, at a time when he was employed in the Government service as a Village Officer stood as a guarantor for a loan availed by respondent No.1 from respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 defaulted payment and thereon respondent No.2 obtained a decree for payment of money against petitioner and respondent No.1 in O.S. No.579 of 2002 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvalla. That decree is being executed in E.P. No.76 of 2007 against the petitioner and his property. Notice under Rules 37 and 66 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure has been served on petitioner. Petitioner has a case that in spite of the fact that respondent No.1 is a rich man employed in Gulf respondent No.2 has not chosen to proceed against respondent No.1. But that does not however preclude respondent No.2 from proceeding against petitioner. 2. Prayer in this petition is for some time to pay off the amount. Learned counsel states that petitioner retired from service and is living on the meagre amount of pension he gets. O.P(C) No.225 of 2010 -: 2 :- Petitioner has requested six months’ time to discharge the decree debt. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to give petitioner three months’ time from this day to discharge the decree debt but subject to conditions. Resultantly, this Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (a) Petitioner is granted three months’ time from this day to discharge the liability under the decree. (b) Execution proceedings against the person and property of petitioner will stand in abeyance for three months from this day on the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in the executing court for payment to respondent No.2 within one month from this day. O.P(C) No.225 of 2010 -: 3 :- (ii) In case property has been proclaimed for sale petitioner shall file affidavit in the executing court before the date scheduled for sale of property waiving fresh proclamation for such sale after the said period of three months. (iii) In case deposit as directed aforesaid is not made within one month or the entire liability is not discharged within three months from this day it will be open to respondent No.2 to proceed against the person and property of petitioner (unless in the meantime executing court grants further time to the petitioner for payment of the amount or installment facility as the case may be after hearing counsel for respondent No.2 also). THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv