IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 150 of 2008() ---------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DTD.22/01/2008 IN E.P.NO.19/2007 IN O.S.NO.1240/2005 OF IIND ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR) PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------------------------- SANKARJEE, S/O.CHENNAMKULANGARA KESEVAN, VETTILASSERY DESOM,THANNIAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER: --------------------------------------------------- INVEST CHITTS & GENERAL FINANCE (P) LTD., URAKAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- C.R.P.No.150 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This revision petition is preferred against the order of the IInd Additional Munsiff, Thrissur in E.P.No.19/2007 in O.S.No.1240/2005. The execution petition is for realisation of the decree amount and PW1 deposed that the judgment debtor has got a car and is deriving a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. There was a suggestion made to the decree holder that the car has been sold in the year 2001. But the court made it clear that no materials are furnished by the judgment debtor. So far as the immovable property is concerned, the court held that there is evidence to show that the immovable property has been transferred. Therefore, the court accepted the testimony of the decree holder and ordered issuance of warrant. 2. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the document to evidence that the car has been sold in 2004. I am not inclined to accept that document at this stage for the reason that there was lot of opportunities for the judgment debtor to produce those documents at the relevant time. Applying the principles of reception of additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure, I feel this is not a case where this can be accepted at this stage. I am also informed that though the decree C.R.P.No.150/2008 2 provided for six months time, the execution petition has been filed before six months and therefore, it is also a defect. But much water has flown thereafter and now I do not want to dismiss the execution petition on a technical ground, but at the same time I think indulgence can be shown to the judgment debtor with a direction to pay the amount due in some installments. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as follows: i) The revision petitioner is directed to pay the amount due in six monthly equal installments commencing from 26.3.2008. ii) If he commits default on the first installment or thereafter two consecutive installments, the benefit conferred on him shall be forfeited and the decree holder can request the court to issue fresh arrest warrant for realisation of the amount. In the light of this order, the court below is directed not to execute the warrant of arrest for the time being. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps