IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 CRP.No. 497 of 2006 --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/03/2006 IN EP.120/2005 IN OS 125/2002 of MUNSIFF COURT, ALATHUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: -------------------------------------------- NOOR MOHAMMED, S/O. HANEEFA RAWTHER AGED 57 YEARS, CHEPPADAM KALAM, VADAKKENCHERRY AMSOM DESOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN SRI.BABY MATHEW RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------- ANTO, S/O. KANICHAYI THOMAS, AGED 55 YEARS, IRINJALAKKUDA VILLAGE DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 497 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The judgment debtor, in EP No.120 of 2005 in OS No. 125 of 2002 on the files of the Alathoor Munsiff's Court, is the revision petitioner. 2. By the impugned order the court below held that, the judgment debtor deliberately failed to make payments towards the decree debt, in spite of having sufficient means and therefore issued warrant of arrest for committing him to face civil consequences, and, this order has been challenged before this Court. 3. The decree holder deposed before the court that the judgment debtor is running cattle feed business as well as a hotel. Besides that, he is in possession and enjoyment of valuable assets both movable and immovable. The decree holder also gave evidence for non-payment of the decree debt. The court below examined the documentary evidence adduced by the decree holder and came to the conclusion that the respondent is a business man having agricultural properties and is earning income from business and properties. There is no contra evidence on the side of the C.R.P. No. 497 OF 2006 -:2:- judgment debtor. The court finally concluded that the judgment debtor is a man of means who can afford to pay the debt. But he deliberately refused from doing so. The court also found that, in spite of the pendency of the execution petition, the judgment debtor did not chose to pay any amount towards the decree debt. 4. Going by the reasons stated by the court below on the basis of evidence on record, the view taken by the court below is to be upheld. In the result, the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. 5. Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he may be given an opportunity to pay the entire decree debt in instalments. In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to take a lenient view and grant few months time to pay the decree debt. The proceedings ordered by the court below for issuance of arrest warrant to the judgment debtor shall be kept in abeyance for a period of nine months on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.10,000/-(Rs.Ten thousand only) within a period of six weeks from today and the balance amount in six equal monthly instalments starting from the month of February, 2009. If the petitioner fails to C.R.P. No. 497 OF 2006 -:3:- pay the first instalment or two consecutive instalments, the order passed by the court below shall stand revived and the execution court shall issue warrant of arrest as ordered in the impugned order. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) ttb