IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 21446 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 75/09 IN OS.331/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SREEDEVI HARIHARAN, W/O.P.R.HARIHARAN NAIR, PARANDAYIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., PADINJAREKKARA, KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 2. P.R.HARIHARAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, PARANDAYIL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA P.O., PADINJAREKKARA, KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. 3. C.RAJENDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, NEDUMPUNJAYIL VEEDU, EDAVATTOM P.O., EDAVATTOM KARA, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI JOSEPH RESPONDENT: --------------- LEELAMMA MUSOLINI, MANNAMPLACKAL HOUSE, CHENAPPADI PADINJAREKKARA, KOOVAPPALLY VILLAGE, MANJIRAPPALLY TALUK THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHETHUKUNNEL HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA KARA, NADUVILE VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. ADV. SRI.MOHAN IDICULLA ABRAHAM SRI.MARTIN D.ALUMKARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.C.No.21446 of 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 : EXECUTION PETITION E.P.No.75/2009 IN O.S.No.331/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM EXHIBIT P2 : OBJECTION FILED BY the PETITIONERS IN E.P.No.75/2009 IN O.S.No.331/2002 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, VAIKOM EXHIBIT P3 : PAY SLIP IN RESPECT OF the 2nd PETITIONER FOR the MONTH OF MAY 2009 EXHIBIT P3(a) : PAY SLIP IN RESPECT OF the 3rd PETITIONER FOR the MONTH OF JANUARY 2009 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.21446 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money against petitioners and another, in O.S.No.331 of 2002 of the Munsiff's court, Kanjirappally. Decree certificate was transmitted to the Munsiff's Court, Vaikom for execution. On the request of respondent notice under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) was issued to the petitioners alleging that in spite of having sufficient means they have willfully failed to pay the decree debt. Petitioners appeared in the executing court which conducted an enquiry into the matter and as per order dated 24-07-2009 found that they inspite of having sufficient means have willfully failed to discharge the decree debt. Accordingly warrant of arrest was ordered to them. That order is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners have deposited Rs.30,000/- in the executing court and that petitioners may be permitted to pay the balance amount payable under the decree in six monthly installments. Learned counsel for respondent also is agreeable for the suggestion. W.P.C.No.21446 of 2010 : 2 : 2. I have gone through the order under challenge and find no reason to interfere with that order. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to give petitioners six months' time to discharge the decree debt. Resultantly the revision petition is dismissed. But, (i) Petitioners are permitted to pay the balance amount due under the decree in six equal monthly installments beginning from 01-06-2010. (ii) It is made clear that if there is any two default in payment of the installments, it will be open to the respondent to proceed with the execution pursuant to the order under challenge. (iii) The amount if any deposited by petitioners in the executing court can be withdrawn by the respondent. (iv) It will be open to the executing court to close the E.P for the time being and in case there is any non compliance of this order respondent can proceed with execution pursuant to the order under challenge, without any fresh enquiry as to the means of petitioners. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-