IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1150 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P. 229/2O09 IN OS.158/2002 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.V.MURALI MOHAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARUPADA HOUSE, KATTOR VILLAGE, EMPLOYED AS U.D.CLERK IN MUNICIPAL OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOMBODINJAMAKKAL KURIES AND LOANS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.O.THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-686 697. 2. MURALI, S/O. DHAMODHARAN, KOTTIKKAL HOUSE, MATTATHUR VILLAGE AND MATTATHUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 692. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1150 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Judgment debtor in E.P.No.229 of 2009 in O.S.No.158 of 2002 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Irinjalakkuda is the petitioner before me. He is challenging Exts.P3 and P4, orders dated 02.09.2010 and 08.09.2010. Respondent No.1 has obtained a money decree against petitioner and others and that decree is under execution. Respondent No.1 wanted to proceed against petitioner and others personally alleging that inspite of having sufficient means they have not paid the amount. Petitioner denied that he had means though he is working as Upper Division Clerk in Irinjalakuda Municipality. On 02.09.2010 executing court passed Ext.P3, order finding that petitioner has sufficient means. That was followed by Ext.P4, order dated 08.09.2010 to repeat warrant of arrest. Learned counsel contends that petitioner did not have sufficient means to pay off the decree amount. 2. It is seen from Ext.P3 that the said order is based on the salary particulars of the petitioner. I must bear in mind that Ext.P3, order passed on 02.09.2010 was not challenged until Ext.P4, order which is only a consequential order. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find reason to interfere with any of the orders under challenge. OP(C) No.1150/2010 2 3. Learned counsel requested that since this Court is not declined to interfere with Exts.P3 and P4, petitioner may be granted some time to pay the amount due under the decree. It is submitted that petitioner is not able to raise the amount immediately and that respondent No.1 has not proceeded against the principal debtor. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to grant three months time to the petitioner from 03.01.2011 for payment of the amount. Resultantly this petition is dismissed. But petitioner is granted three months time from 03.01.2011 to pay the amount due under the decree in monthly installments. Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of three months subject to the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall deposit in the executing court `.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) for payment to respondent No.1 on or before 03.01.2011. ii. Petitioner shall continue to deposit in the executing court not less than `.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) on or before the 3rd of each succeeding month provided that by the period granted hereby the entire amount due under the decree is deposited. OP(C) No.1150/2010 3 iii. In case of default in payment of any installment or petitioner failed to pay the entire amount within the time granted hereby it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed against petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders without any further enquiry as to means. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks