IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 17940 of 2007(I) -------------------------- E.P.NO.1686/05 IN OS.1672/2003 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SHAJIMON, S/O. BHASKARAN, KONGANAM MOOLA HOUSE, THEKKUMPADOM, PATTIKADU. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O. MAKKU -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SAYOOJYA KURIES PVT. LTD., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.C.NO.17940 OF 2007 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN E.P.NO.1686/05 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE EXECUTION COURT IN E.P.NO.1686/05 DATED 5-1-07 /True Copy/ PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 17940 of 2007 ------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C.Kuriakose, J. In this writ petition under Article 227 the petitioners, who are judgment debtors, challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the learned Munsiff directing issuance of arrest warrant against the petitioners on the basis of a finding that the judgment debtors are having sufficient means to pay the decree debt and are willfully negligent in the matter of making payment. In response to the notice under Rule 37 of Order 21 CPC, the petitioners contended that they have no means to pay the decree debt and that they have not been willfully negligent in the matter of making payments. On noticing such contention, the execution petition was posted by the execution court for enquiry into the means of the petitioners. The decree holder got himself examined and he testified that the Judgment Debtors own extensive areas of land and a tipper lorry, a porclain and a house which is worth atleast Rs.10 Lakhs, apart from an ambassador car. The decree holder also testified that the first WPC.No. 17940/2007.. 2 writ petitioner, who is the first judgment debtor, was given a sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs by his father in law at the time of his marriage. Though the decree holder was cross examined by the counsel for the writ petitioners, no serious dent could be made on the testimony of the decree holder in chief. The learned Munsiff posted the case for evidence of the writ petitioners. On that date, it was reported that they are not adducing any evidence. It is under such circumstance, that the impugned order was passed. Despite persuasive submissions of Sri.K.A.Sreejith, learned counsel for the petitioners, I am not persuaded to think that the impugned orders suffer from any infirmity and at any rate , to the extent of warranting correction under Article 227. Challenge against Ext.P4 fails. The writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be a direction to the execution court to keep the impugned order in abeyance on condition that the writ petitioners pay towards the decree debt at the rate of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) every month commencing from 15/2/2009 till such time as the entire decree debt is wiped off. It is made clear that if any single default is caused in the matter of paying the instalments, the petitioners WPC.No. 17940/2007.. 3 will forfeit the instalments benefit granted under this judgment, under such contingency the impugned order will become operative. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk