IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 483 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5738/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------ P.S.LALU,HOUSE NO.XVIII/815, PROPRIETOR,ALANKAR JEWELLERS, MULLACKAL,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------ M.S.MANOJ,MUTAYAATH HOUSE, RAMAPURAM P.O.,PAKVELI,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ R.P.No.483 of 2009 in W.P.C.No.5738/2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 ORDER The Review Petitioner filed the Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the executing court holding that the petitioner has means to pay the decree debt and he has wilfully refused to pay the same. Accordingly, the executing court passed an order to issue warrant for the arrest of the petitioner. 2. When the Writ Petition came up for hearing, a submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be permitted to pay the decree debt in instalments. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to pay the decree amount in monthly instalments of Rs.15,000/-. Certain other directions were issued to ensure due payment of the instalments. The consequences of default in payment of the instalments were also stipulated in the order. 3. The Review Petitioner submits that on the same day of RP No.483/2009 2 disposal of the Writ Petition, namely, 20th March 2009, the executing court had passed an order permitting the petitioner to pay the decree debt in monthly instalments of Rs.5,000/- as agreed upon by the decree holder. The Review Petitioner seeks to review the judgment and the Writ petition accordingly. 4. Now there are two orders ; one passed by this Court and the other by the executing court. The order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition was not on consent of the parties. But, the order passed by the executing court was on such consent. When the parties have arrived at a consensus in the matter of realisation of the decree debt, I do not think that the court should stand in the way of implementing such consensus, provided it is legal and proper. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. The order dated 20th March 2009 passed in the Writ Petition is set aside. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl