IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7257 of 2008(L) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2008 IN EA.29/08 IN EP.306/07 IN OS.1748/2005 of II ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SIVASANKARAN, S/O. VADAKKUMURI SANKARAN, VIYYUR VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. RAVINDRAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, VADAKKUMURI, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.P.R.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI SRI.S.SUJITH RESPONDENTS: ------------- EZHUTHACHAN KURIES (P) LTD., TRICHUR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7257 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside Ext.P4 order and directing the court below to reconsider the request made in Ext.P2 petition, that is to recall the warrant. 2. The learned counsel submitted before me that the judgment debtors never wanted to evade payment but they are only carpenters by profession who are not in a position to pay the money in lump sum and on the day when the matter was posted for evidence, unfortunately the counsel was engaged in another court at Irinjalakuda and there was a request made to pass over the case. Unfortunately, no time was granted. Then a petition filed to recall the warrant was also dismissed. If on account of the absence of the lawyer for few hours, the party has go to the jail, it may not be proper especially where it is submitted that the counsel was engaged in another court. The court has to take into consideration these aspects before refusing the request to cross examine the witness. Even now, WPC7257/2008 2 the learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that if breathing time is given they will be able to wipe off the liability or in other words they wanted instalment facility. I therefore set aside the order of the court below directing to permit the judgment debtors counsel to cross examine the witness of the decree holder and also to produce evidence in support of their contentions. If it is possible to grant them instalment facility as contemplated under order 20 Rule 11(2) with the consent of the decree holder that also may be considered. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly making it very clear that the warrant of arrest should not be executed till a final decision is taken in the matter. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl