IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 15097 of 2006(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA 488/2005 IN OS.255/2003 of II ADDL.M.C.,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. ARUMUGHAN, KOVILVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THALAYAL, ARALUMMOODU, BALARAMAPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT: ------------- RAJAMMA, D/O. LEKSHMI, CHERUTHALAVILA VEEDU, THALAYAL DESOM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, BALARAMAPURAM,NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 15097 OF 2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1. COPY OF THE DECREE DT. 26.9.03 IN O.S. 255/03 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA EXT.P2. COPY OF THE PETITION WITH AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN EA 488/05 IN OS 255/03 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 21.7.05 EXT.P3. COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OS NO.255/03 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA DT. 28.10.05 EXT.P4. COPY OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA IN OS 255/03 DT. 4.1.06 EXT.P5. COPY OF THE ORDER IN EA NO.488/05 IN OS 255/03 DT. 31.3.06 OF THE II ADDL. MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 15097 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the II Addl. Munsiff, Neyyattinkara, in E.A. 488/05 in O.S. 255/03. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the property attached is not liable to be attached in execution of the decree as he is a washerman by profession and the entire four cents of land are necessary for drying the clothes. Under Section 60 (C) one has either to be an agriculturist or a labourer or a domestic servant to get exemption. The washerman does not come under any of these category and further there is nothing to show that this land is used for the purpose of carrying out his avocation. Therefore, the finding of the court below need not be interfered with that aspect and so the same is confirmed by this court. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether an opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to pay the amount in instalments. 2. Heard learned counsel for the decree holder as well. It is submitted that the decree holder is aged and hence the protraction WPC NO 15097/06 2 will only result in non-enjoyment of the fruits of the decree. I find some force in the contention. But, at the same time the writ petitioner is only a washerman, who may not be able to raise funds in a lump. Taking into consideration the totality of circumstances, I am inclined to grant instalment facility to the writ petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The order of the court below regarding Section 60(C) is confirmed. (ii) The writ petitioner is directed to make the payment in 12 monthly equal instalments of which the first instalment is to be paid on or before 18.2.08 and the subsequent instalments on the 18th of the succeeding months. If the petitioner commits default in making payment of the first instalment and thereafter of two consecutive instalments, the decree holder is at liberty to proceed with the sale of the property for realisation of the amount. Since an opportunity is given, the Court below is directed not to proceed with the sale now, until a default is made by the writ petitioner. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 15097/06 3