IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 CRP.No. 342 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 236/2008 IN OS.36/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. V.KAMARAJ,PROP.M/S.BROSCO ENTERPRISES, RESIDING AT QMC 1246,ANDAMUKKAM WARD,KOLLAM. 2. V.DHANALEKSHMI,PUTHEN VEEDU,ANDAMUKKAM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------- 1. THE NEDUNGADI BANK LTD,KOLLAM. 2. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,HOSPITAL ROAD, CHAMAKKADA,KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.342 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of July, 2010 ORDER This revision is preferred by judgment debtor in E.P.No.236 of 2008 in O.S.No.36 of 2003 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff, Kollam. Petitioners have suffered a decree dated 28-03-2006 for payment of money with interest @ 9% per annum on the principal amount and cost. Since the decree was not complied respondent No.2 filed E.P.No.236 of 2008 and sought personal execution against petitioner No.1. That was objected by petitioner No.1 but after conducting an enquiry executing court found that in spite of having means petitioner has refused or neglected to pay amount due under the decree. Accordingly warrant of arrest was issued to petitioner No.1. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel has contended that finding of executing court regarding means is not correct. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supported order of the executing court. 2. PW1 gave evidence on behalf of respondent No.2 regarding means of petitioner No.1. Contra evidence is given by petitioner No.1 as DW1. Even as per his evidence he was running a ready made manufacturing unit and claimed to have C.R.P.No.342 of 2010 : 2 : closed it about 4 years back. At the time of cross examination PW1 gave evidence that petitioner No.1 has landed property and transferred it in the name of of his near relatives. He is taking income from the said properties even now. This court in Kuppuswamy Vs. P. G. Menon (1992 (2) KLT 203) has held that initial burden of proving means is on the decree holder but that does not mean that he is required to give all details regarding source of income of judgment debtor. The initial burden is discharged by respondent No.2. Evidence of petitioner No.1 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption. In the circumstances, there is little reason to interfere with the finding of learned Munsiff as regards means of petitioner No.1. 3. Learned counsel requested that petitioner No.1 may be permitted to discharge the liability in installments. Learned counsel has requested for 10 months' time to discharge the liability. I have heard learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 also. The time requested by learned counsel is excessive. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to permit petitioner No.1 to pay the decree amount in 6 monthly installments beginning from 01-08-2010 onwards. C.R.P.No.342 of 2010 : 3 : Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioner No.1 is permitted to pay the balance amount due under the decree in 6 monthly installments of not less than Rs.10,000/ per month beginning from 01-08-2010 onwards. The amount shall be deposited in the executing court on or before 5th of each month. (ii) The entire outstanding liability shall be discharged by the last installment. (iii) In case there is default in payment of any two installments or, the entire amount is not paid within the time as aforesaid it will be open to respondent No.2 to proceed against petitioner No.1 pursuant to the finding regarding means entered by the executing court without further enquiry regarding means. (iv) The warrant of arrest issued against petitioner No.1 shall stand in abeyance during the said period of six months or default is committed as stated above, whichever is earlier. (v) The amount being deposited in the executing court can be withdrawn by respondent No.2. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-