IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).NO. 3951 OF 2011(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.119/2007 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- M.V.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.GOVINDA MARAR, PRIYA FOOD PRODUCTS, BEHIND L.I.C.OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA SMT.N.K.SHEEBA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.SATHYAM ROLLER & FLOUR MILLS[P] LTD, ANDOOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PLOT, POST PARASSINIKADAVU, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANIL K.BANSAL, S/O.BANZAL, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT "BANSAL VILLA", KODIAL, GUTHOOR ROAD, BEJY PORT, MAGLORE. PIN- THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.3951 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/3/2009 IN O.S.119/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT THALIPARAMBA. EXHIBIT P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/12/2009 IN IA.1209/2009 IN A.S.73/09 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PAYYANNUR. EXHIBIT P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 17/8/2009 IN A.S.73/2009 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PAYYANNUR. EXHIBIT P4- THE TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/11/2011 IN E.P.119/2009 IN O.S.119/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, THALIPARAMBA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.3951 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 07th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, order dated 16.11.2011 in E.P. No.119 of 2011 in O.S.No.119 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thaliparamba ordering warrant of arrest to the petitioner on a finding that in spite of having means he has failed/refused to pay the amount due under the decree. 2. Respondent obtained a decree for payment of money against petitioner. Petitioner challenged that decree in A.S. No.73 of 2009 before the leaned Sub Judge, Payyannur and obtained a conditional order of stay evidenced by Ext.P2, the condition being that petitioner has to deposit Rs.28,275/- before 23.12.2009. Petitioner did not comply with the said order and hence respondent proceeded with the execution. Respondent produced Ext.A2 to prove means of petitioner. Acting on Ext.A2, learned Munsiff found that petitioner has means and passed Ext.P4, order. Learned counsel contended that based on Ext.A2 alone the executing court was not right in finding that petitioner has sufficient means. O.P(C) No.3951 of 2011 -: 2 :- 3. Exhibit A2 shows that petitioner was conducting a bread manufacturing unit. Though petitioner has a contention that he has closed down the said Unit, he did not adduce evidence in that line. Hence I do not find reason to interfere with the finding entered by the executing court regarding means of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel requests that learned Sub Judge may be directed to dispose of the appeal as early as possible. Since execution proceedings are on and the appeal is of the year 2009, it is appropriate and necessary that the appeal is disposed of as early as possible. Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Sub Judge, Payynnur to dispose of A.S. No.73 of 2009 if preliminary steps are over and there is no legal impediment in disposing of the appeal as early as possible bearing in mind that execution proceedings are on. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv