IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 9041 of 2009(O) ------------------------- EP NO.54/2008 IN OS.97/2008 of MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- REJI ABRAHAM, S/O.K.O.ABRAHAM, KURISHUMOOTTIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI KARA, PATTITHANAM P.O., MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. YOGAKSHEMAM CURIES & LOANS LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. YOGAKSHEMAM CURIES & LOANS LTD., ETTUMANOOR BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CLERK S.S.UNNIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.9041/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF EP NO.54/2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.2.2009 IN EP NO.54/2008 IN OS 97/2008 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 17.6.2008 EVIDENCING THE ILLNESS OF THE PETITIONER //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9041 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT Respondents though served, remain absent. 2. Petitioner is judgment debtor in E.P.No.54 of 2008 in O.S.No.97 of 2008 of the court of learned Munsiff, Ettumanoor. He challenges Ext.P2, order dated 18.02.2009 issuing warrant of arrest to him finding that he has sufficient means. Learned counsel contends that there was no sufficient evidence to find means of petitioner. 3. It is seen from Ext.P2, order that what was available before the executing court was only the evidence of PW1. He stated that petitioner has a monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and that petitioner willfully neglected to pay the amount due under the decree. Petitioner did not enter to the witness box or adduce any contra evidence. Relying on the evidence of PW1, executing court found that petitioner has sufficient means. In so far as there was no other evidence on record and since it is not necessary that respondent No.1/decree holder has to give all details of the source of income of petitioner/judgment debtor and what is required is only some evidence of the means of judgment debtor I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P2. WP(C) No.9041/2009 2 4. At this stage learned counsel submitted that petitioner is a chronic hepatitis-B patient and that he is unable to raise the amount due under the decree in lump. Learned counsel has requested eight months' time to pay the amount due under the decree. 5. Respondents though served have not cared to appear. Having regard to the circumstances stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay the amount due under the decree in five equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010. Resultantly this Writ Petition is dismissed. But petitioner is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in five equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010. In case any two installments are defaulted it will be open to respondent No.1/decree holder to proceed with execution pursuant to Ext.P2 without any further enquiry regarding means. Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of five months beginning from 01.07.2010 or till default is committed by the petitioner, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks