IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3974 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- OS.NO.6/2010 of SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------------------- RAJENDRAN NAIR, S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, THOPPIL VEEDU, BUDHANOOR MURI, ENNAKADU VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR SRI.K.S.ARUNDAS RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------------------------ STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, ENNAKKADU BRANCH, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER - 688 001. BY ADV.SRI.SATHISH NINAN,SC SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.3974/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.6/10 IN THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, CHENGANNUR. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/2/2011 IN E.P.NO.61/10 BY THE SUB-COURT, CHENGANNUR. P3 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/7/2011 IN E.P.NO.61/10 BY THE SUB-COURT, CHENGANNUR. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3974 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011. JUDGMENT Ext.P3, order dated 13.07.2011 in E.P.No.61 of 2010 in O.S.No.6 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Chengannur is under challenge. By the said order executing court found means for petitioner and issued warrant of arrest for realisation of amount due under the decree. It is contended that finding regarding means is not correct. There is also a request to allow petitioner to pay the amount due under the decree in installments. 2. Learned counsel for respondent has resisted the contention and the request for installment facility. 3. So far as grievance of petitioner regarding Ext.P3, order is concerned, it is seen that petitioner did not prefer any objection to the notice under Order XXI, Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor was he present in court on 13.07.2011 when the execution petition was taken up. Respondent filed proof affidavit regarding means of petitioner which was accepted by the executing court. In the circumstances I do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge. OP(C)No.3974/2011 2 4. So far as the request for installment facility is concerned, having regard to the amount due under the decree and circumstances stated by learned counsel I am inclined to permit petitioner pay amount due under the decree in installments within one year subject to conditions. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of as follows: While no interference is required with the finding of executing court as to means of petitioner in Ext.P3, order he is permitted to pay the amount due under the decree in installments as follows: (a) petitioner is permitted to pay/deposit in the executing court for payment to the respondent the amount due under the decree in twelve (12) equal monthly installments beginning from 01.01.2012 provided that by the last installment the entire balance amount is paid. (b) Payment/deposit as aforesaid shall be made on or before the 5th of each month and if that day happens to be a holiday, such payment/deposit shall be made on the next working day. OP(C)No.3974/2011 3 (c) In case of any two default in payment/deposit of the installments it will be open to the executing court to proceed with personal execution pursuant to Ext.P3, order without any further enquiry regarding means of petitioner. (d) Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the period above stated or till default as aforesaid is committed, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks