IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 18602 of 2008(M) -------------------------- OS.984/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN KIZHAKKUMPURATH HOUSE ARIMPUR P.O. VELATHUR VILLAGE THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ECO MARK KURIES PRIVATE LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ECO MARK TOWERS, KOKKALI THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN KAIPILLY HOUSE, ARIMPUR THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. DHASARADAN M.K. S/O.KUNHAPPU MANGATTUKARA HOUSE ARIMPUR, THRISSUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.18602 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the third judgment debtor in O.S.984/2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Thrissur. First respondent is the decree holder. Under the decree petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 jointly and severally are liable to pay the decree debt. First respondent filed the execution petition for arrest and detention. According to petitioner, he has already paid Rs.19,000/- out of the decree debt of Rs.40,700/- and interest. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the executing court to grant permission to the petitioner to pay the decree debt in twenty equal monthly instalments and to declare that respondents 2 and 3 are also liable to remit the balance amount and also to declare that petitioner is not liable to pay the entire balance amount. W.P.(C)18602/2008 2 2. Learned counsel argued that decree holder is only proceeding against the petitioner who is a Peon working in a Nationalised Bank and if he is to be arrested, he will lose his job and he is only a surety and petitioner is prepared to pay the amount in instalments and in such circumstance, his arrest and detention may be avoided. 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any reason to give any direction as sought for. After the decree, judgment debtor cannot be permitted to pay the decree debt in instalments without permission of the decree holder. If petitioner seeks permission to pay the balance decree debt in instalments, it is up to him to approach the executing court. If such an application is filed before the executing court,executing court shall consider the same in accordance with the law and pass appropriate order. Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that decree holder should be directed to realise the decree debt from other judgment debtors. The fact that W.P.(C)18602/2008 3 he is only a surety will not enable petitioner to contend that decree holder is not entitled to realise the debt from him. As long as the decree creates a joint and several liability petitioner is liable to pay the amount. If petitioner files an application before the executing court for granting time for paying balance debt or in instalments, learned Munsiff shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law and till that is decided, petitioner may not be arrested, if petition as stated earlier is filed. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006