IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 9831 of 2009(O) -------------------------------- OS.22/2000 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,PATTAMBI .................... PETITIONER(S): DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------- K.E.SURENDRAN, S/O. KALARICKAL VELAYUDHA PANICKER, CHELMBRA AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, BROTHER RAVEENDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. HAMSA, S/O. ALAVI, PARAYARU KUNDIL, TIRUVEGAPURA AMSOM,KAIPURAM DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. KUNHI PATHUMMA W/O. HAMSA, PARAYARY KUNDIL, THIRUVEGAPURA AMSOM, KAIPURAM DESOM OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 9831/2009(O) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF E.A.NO.68/2008. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/12/2008 IN E.A.NO.68/2008 IN E.P.NO. 45/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.9831 Of 2009 ---------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The decree holder in E.P.No.45/2004 in O.S.No.22/2000 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi, is the petitioner herein. The prayer in the writ petition is to set aside Ext.P2 order dated 10.12.2008 passed in E.A.No.68/2008 in the said E.P. The first respondent is the judgment debtor and the second respondent is his wife. The petitioner obtained a decree for realisation of Rs.55,705.35/-. The decree was passed on 30.6.2000 by the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. Subsequently, the decree was transferred to the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Pattambi. 2. The first respondent/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.68 of 2008 claiming that the property under attachment is liable to be exempted under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him he is an agricultural labourer earlier and at present he is a coolie, that he is residing in the property sought to be attached and sold, therefore he prayed for dismissal of the execution petition. The execution court considered the W.P.(C).No.9831 Of 2009 ::2:: contentions of the parties in E.A.No.68/2008. The execution court held that the judgment debtor is entitled to the benefit conferred under Section 60(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore the property of the petitioner is not liable to be put in auction in execution of the decree. 3. During the course of hearing of this writ petition, this Court made certain suggestions to the parties. Based on the suggestions made, the brother of the decree holder and the judgment debtor appeared in person. This Court tried to settle the matter. The suggestions made by the court was agreed by the parties. Accordingly, the judgment debtor agreed to pay a portion of the decree debt towards full satisfaction of the decree debt. He agreed to pay Rs.25,000/-, in addition to Rs.10,000/- deposited in court. He also agreed that out of the said Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/- shall be paid within one month from today and the balance within a period of two months thereafter. The decree holder agreed to the said proposal. The amount payable as per the decree now comes approximately to Rs.1.10 Lakhs. Taking into account the present financial position of the W.P.(C).No.9831 Of 2009 ::3:: judgment debtor and the suggestion made by this Court to accept Rs.35,000/- towards the satisfaction of the full amount, the decree holder graciously agreed. In view of the settlement the question as to whether the judgment debtor is entitled to protection under Section 60(c) is left undecided and the said contention is no longer available to the judgment debtor. The finding in Ext.P2 order that the property of the petitioner is not liable to be put in auction in execution is vacated. If the amount is not paid on the dates as agreed, the decree holder is at liberty to realise the entire decree amount by sale of the property belonging to the judgment debtor or by any other methods. The further proceedings in the execution petition shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three months in order to watch and see whether the amount as agreed is paid or not. The decree holder is free to withdraw the amount already deposited by the judgment debtor. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-