IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 2107 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- E.P.1105/2005 IN OS.712/2004 of PRL. MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- MURALI, S/O.BRAHMADATHAN, RAMANKULATH HOUSE, PULLOOR DESOM, PULLUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- FOR KOODAL MANIKYAM DEVASWOM MANAGING COMMITTEE, IRINJALAKUDA, THE ADMINISTRATOR, KOODAL MANIKYAM DEVASWOM, IRINJALAKUDA. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2107/2009-A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/10/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. HARUN-UL-RASHID,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.2107 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.1105/2005 in O.S.No.712/04 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The respondent has obtained a decree for realisation of Rs.31,824/-. The said decree was passed on 6/6/2005. In the execution petition filed, the petitioner contended that he has no sufficient means to pay the decree debt. Both sides adduced evidence. The Execution Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the petitioner has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that he has no means to pay the decree debt and ordered to issue arrest warrant against him. Ext.P1 is the order, which is under challenge. The question as to whether the petitioner has got sufficient means to pay the decree debt is a pure question of fact. The Execution -2- WP(C).No.2107/2009 Court, after appreciating the facts, held that the judgment debtor has sufficient means to pay the decree debt. This Court finds that no valid grounds are made out by the petitioner to set aside Ext.P1 order. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to this Court's order dated 20/1/09, the petitioner deposited Rs.10,000/- towards the decree debt. The learned counsel requested this Court that the petitioner may be allowed to pay the balance decree debt in instalments. 3. In the interest of justice and taking into account the financial difficulties of the petitioner, the request is allowed. The impugned order shall be kept in abeyance, if the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) within a period of one month from today and pays the balance amount in four equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before the 15th November, 2010 and the subsequent instalments on or before the 15th of every succeeding months. If the amount as -3- WP(C).No.2107/2009 ordered by this Court is not paid within the prescribed time, the order under challenge stands and the execution court is free to realise the decree debt by resorting to execution proceedings including arrest and detention of the judgment debtor in civil prison. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.