IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 CRP.No. 168 of 2010() --------------------- (ORDER IN E.P.No.373/2008 in O.S.No.529/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHALAKUDY) REVN. PETITIONER: 2ND JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ----------------------------------------- M/S.ANNA PAPER CONTAINERS COMPANY (CARTON MAKERS), REPRESENTED BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE MR.JOHNSON A KAREDAN, KAREDAN HOUSE, SANJO NAGAR, MELOOR ROAD, CHALAKUDY. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDER & IST J.D. --------------------------------------- 1. M/S.DASAI PAPER, B.P.O.LINK ROAD, ERNAKULAM, BY PROPRIETRICS, MRS.LALITHA R.DESAI, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR MANAGER, JINU GEORGE, S/O.LATE GEORGE, MUTHALATH HOUSE, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 2. M/S.ANNA PAPER CONTAINERS COMPANY, (CARTON MAKERS), MURINGOOR, MG.DXI/298, ANNA ROAD, N.H.47, DIVINE NAGAR, REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETRICS, MRS.TESSY JOHNSON, W/O.JOHNSON, KAREDAN HOUSE, SANJO NAGAR, MELOOR ROAD, CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.168 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 24th day of May, 2010 ORDER This C.R.P is in challenge of order dated 25-01-2010 in E.P.No.373 of 2008 in O.S.No.529 of 2004 of the court of learned Munsiff, Chalakkudy. As per the impugned order petitioner/judgment debtor No.II, Mr. Johnson A Karedan is found to have sufficient means to discharge the decree debt but, has wilfully failed to pay the amount. Hence there is an order to issue arrest warrant against him. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the order is not sustainable since there is no sufficient evidence regarding means of petitioner. 2. It is not disputed that in the earlier execution petition filed by respondent No.1/decree holder, means of petitioner was found and there was an order for issue of warrant. Then installment facility was given and on failure to comply with that order present E.P was filed. That order is under challenge in this proceeding. The executing court has referred to the evidence on record and found that the petitioner has sufficient means to discharge the liability. Having regard to the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, I do not find reason to interfere with the C.R.P.No.168 of 2010 : 2 : order under challenge in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner requests that petitioner may be permitted to discharge the decree debt in fifteen equal monthly installments. It is also stated by learned counsel that pursuant to the order of this court petitioner has deposited Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) in the executing court. It is also the submission of learned counsel that other payments also have been made in the executing court which are proved by memos signed by counsel for respondent No.1/decree holder. I have heard counsel for respondent No.1 also regarding the request made by petitioner for payment by monthly instalments. Learned counsel submits that on previous occasions petitioner did not comply with the order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated by learned counsel for petitioner I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to discharge the decree debt less the amount already paid in equal monthly installments. Resultantly, the revision petition is disposed of in the following lines. (i) Petitioner/judgment debtor No.II is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree, less the sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited pursuant to the order of this court dated 24-03-2010 and other payments made in the executing court through counsel for C.R.P.No.168 of 2010 : 3 : respondent No.1/decree holder and certified by memos produced in court, in ten equal monthly installments beginning from 01-06- 2010. It is made clear that if petitioner defaults payment of any two installments, it will be open to the respondent to proceed with execution personally against petitioner pursuant to the order under challenge in this proceeding and without further proof of means. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-