IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 24549 of 2009(O) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINDHU JOSE, AGED 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MARIA FUELS, D/O.PERUMATTIL FRANCIS, PULLUVAZHY. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- UNITED PETRO FINANCE LIMITED, WEST FORT, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, SURESH KUMAR, S/O.APPUKKUTTAN, PANDARICKAL HOUSE, CHERPPU, PERUMPILLISSERI DESOM, CHOWOOR VILLAGE. ADV. SRI.P.PAULOCHAN ANTONY FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.24549/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF E.P.1683/07 IN O.S.NO.1945/02 OF HONOURABLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF OBJECTION. EXT.P3: COPY OF ADDITIONAL OBJECTION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.24549 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.1683 of 2007 in O.S.No.1945 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Decree executed was one passed in a suit for money, and the respondent is the decree holder. At the trial side, parties entered into a compromise and the decree was passed in terms of that compromise. In execution, an immovable property belonging to the petitioner/judgment debtor was attached and steps are being taken for its sale. Petitioner, at that stage, moved an application seeking permission to discharge the decree debt by instalments. Without considering that application, steps are being continued for sale, is the grievance espoused for filing this petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. WPC.24549/09 2 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor is to provide an opportunity for discharging the decree debt in instalments. The respondent/decree holder has also no objection, provided, reasonable sum is fixed towards the instalment payment for discharge of the decree debt. Pursuant to the admission of the writ petition, it is submitted, petitioner/judgment debtor has deposited Rs.25,000/- towards the decree debt. Principal amount as per the terms of the compromise decree was Rs.62,056/-. The decree provided for payment of that sum for its satisfaction within the time stipulated, and if defaulted, for realisation of that sum with 18% interest per annum. Admittedly, the decree was not satisfied within the period fixed under the terms of the compromise. What is the amount due to the decree holder in terms of the compromise decree is a matter to be gone into by the execution court, and for the time being, in extending an opportunity to the petitioner/judgment debtor to discharge the decree debt as WPC.24549/09 3 requested for, over which, the decree holder has no objection as well, I find this Court need not examine the question what is the amount due under the decree. The judgment debtor shall discharge the decree debt in eight equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.6,000/- each commencing from next month onwards. The first instalment due shall be paid on or before 20th December, 2009. In the event of 20th being a holiday, the amount shall be deposited on the next working day. On the last instalment, that is, 8th instalment, whatever amount outstanding on the decree debt shall be discharged by the judgment debtor irrespective of the sum fixed towards the instalment. In the event of default of even one instalment, it will be open to the decree holder to proceed for sale of the property of the judgment debtor as provided by law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp