IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 35 of 2010(O) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN E.P.93/2010 IN OS.694/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: --------------------------------- 1. KRISHNARAJ, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPA CHETTIAR, 43/272, NAIKKARA STREET, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 2. SAKTHIVEL, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPA CHETTIAR, 1/290, SANKUVARTHODE, THATTATHARA, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. 3. MANIKANDAN, S/O.PAZHANIYAPPA CHETTIAR, 31/62, SUBRAMANIA STREET, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER: --------------- SOVEREIGN CHITS PVT. LTD, METRO BAZAR KOPPAM PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY OFFICE ASSISTANT, ENASUKUTTY, S/o. LOUIS-678551 ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN FOR R-1 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 35 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : EP 93/10 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P2 : COUNTER STATEMENT DTD 14.06.10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 : EP 93/10 OF the MUNSIFF COURT, PALAKKAD DTD 12.08.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.35 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioners are judgment debtors in E.P.No.93 of 2010 in O.S.No.694 of 2007 of the court of learned Munsiff, Palakkad, Petitioners have suffered a decree for payment of money and as per the execution petition around Rs.65,000/- was due. Petitioner said that Rs.10,000/- was already paid. Court below has on a finding that petitioners have sufficient means, ordered warrant of arrest against them. According to the petitioners the order is not correct since there is no evidence that they have means but, it has come in evidence that petitioners had landed properties and even as per their version they have disposed of the same. Executing court has referred to the evidence on record and found that petitioners have sufficient means. Having heard counsel on both sides and gone through the order under challenge I do not find reason to interfere with the order. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners requested that petitioners may be granted ten months' time to pay the amount due under the decree. I have heard counsel for respondent also in that regard. Respondent is not agreeable of granting ten months' time. Having regard to the difficulties stated by O.P(C).No.35 of 2010 : 2 : petitioners they are granted time till 01-12-2010 to discharge the liability under the decree. Resultantly this petition is dismissed but, petitioners are granted eight months' time from 01-12-2010 to discharge the liability under the decree and the warrant of arrest issued to the petitioners will stand in abeyance during the said period subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall deposit in the executing court for payment to the respondent entire amount due under the decree in eight (8) equal monthly installments beginning from 01-12-2010 provided that by the last installment the entire amount shall be discharged. (ii) The amount shall be deposited in the executing court for payment to respondent on or before 5th of every month. (iii) In case of default in deposit of any installment or the entire amount is not deposited within the time granted hereby it will be open to the respondent to proceed with personal execution pursuant to the impugned order without any further enquiry regarding means of petitioner. (iv) The warrant of arrest issued to the petitioners will stand in abeyance during the said period of eight months or till default in deposit of installment is committed, whichever is earlier. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-