IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8406 of 2008(A) ------------------------- OS.309/1991 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- O.J.PAUL, AUDITOR (RTD), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, THOMMANA DESOM, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE, TRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.S.MUMTAZ RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. PRIYADARSINI KURIS & LOANS (P) LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR JOSE, S/O.MANJALI LONAPPAN, AMBALLOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. C.K.JOY, S/O.CHALISSERY KUNJUMARIYAM, KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE & DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. A.N.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, AKKARAPURATH, CHEMBUKAVU, TRISSUR, OVERSEER, KSEB, RAMAVARMAPURAM. 4. SREEDHARAN, S/O.KONDATH ACHUTHAN, AVANUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, TRISSUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 8406 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed with a prayer to set aside Exts.P7 and P8 orders. By the said decree the Court below awarded a decree in favour of the plaintiff for realisation of a sum of Rs.24,430/- with 12% interest on the sum of Rs.18,000/- from the date of suit till the decree and at the rate of 6% from the date of decree till realisation from defendants 1 to 3. The present writ petitioner is only a surety who is the 2nd judgment debtor in the case. The Court below after conducting proper enquiry held that he is having sufficient means and ordered arrest. The Court did not entertain the case of non-maintainability of the execution petition and ultimately ordered arrest of judgment debtors 1 and 2. It is against that, the present writ petition is filed. W.P.C 8406 OF 2008 -:2:- 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The non-maintainability on account of the non-impleadment of legal representatives of the 4th judgment debtor does not loom large for the reason that the liability of the surety is co- extensive with that of the principal debtor, the decree holder is entitled to proceed against all or any one of the judgment debtors. So that contention is not sustainable. 3. The second contention is regarding the payment of about Rs.14,000/- which has been categorically denied by the decree holder. The writ petitioner is a judgment debtor and if any amount is paid and if any receipt is received, it is for him to prove the discharge. So one cannot find fault with the lower Court for rejecting the application. But at the same time if the writ petitioner wants to wipe off the liability it is desirable that a breathing time is given and therefore I dispose of the writ petition as follows. 1) The finding of means of the Court below is confirmed. W.P.C 8406 OF 2008 -:3:- 2) The writ petitioner is permitted to pay the decree debt in six monthly equal instalments commencing from 10.4.08. 3) If he commits default of initial instalment or thereafter two consecutive instalment he will forfeit the benefit granted to him under this order and decree holder can request the executing Court to issue warrant of arrest. 4) Since time facility is provided the Court below is directed not to execute the arrest warrant against the 2nd judgment debtor namely the writ petitioner, O.J. Paul. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-