IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 1915 of 2011(O) ------------------------- EA.NO.70/2010 IN EP.NO.19/2010 IN OS.270/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.USHADEVI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.R.VIKRAMAN, PROPRIETRESS OF M/S.BELL FOODS (MARINE DIVISION), PALLICHAL ROAD, KOCHI-5, RESIDING AT 22/1491-A, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, KOCHI-6. 2. R.VIKRAMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.P.K.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT 22/1491-A, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, KOCHI-6. 3. P.V.VIJU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.R.VIKRAMAN, RESIDING AT 22/1491-A, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, KOCHI-6. 4. M/S.BELL FOODS, PALLICHAL ROAD, KOCHI-5, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRESS, P.USHADEVI. BY ADV. SRI.ALIAS M.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDER: -------------------------------------------------------- T.R.SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.THEETHAR RAWUTHER, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.RAGADH ENTERPRISES NO.5756 D-BLOCK, THARAKANDOM ESTATE, KURISUPPALLY ROAD, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-15. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(C)NO.1915/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.NO.270 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT AT ERNAKULAM. P2: COPY OF E.P.NO.19 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.270 OF 2010. P3: COPY OF PETITION EA.NO.70/2010 IN E.P.NO.19 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.270 OF 2008. P4: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN E.A.NO.70 OF 2010 IN E.P.NO.19 OF 2010 IN O.S.NO.270 OF 2008. P5: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 8/04/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1915 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioners are judgment debtors in O.S.No.270 of 2008 and E.P.No.19 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi. Respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money and in execution thereof, certain movables belonging to the petitioners were sought to be attached. The request for attachment (in E.A.No.70 of 2010) was resisted by petitioners on various grounds. The executing court rejected the contentions and ordered attachment of the movables. Ext.P5, order is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel contended that the movables which are sought to be attached are machineries installed in the factory of petitioners, the same could not be attached and if so done, it would affect livelihood of petitioners as they will not be able to run the factory. Learned counsel has agreed to pay the amount in installments. I have heard learned counsel for respondent also. 2. This Court on June 22, 2011 has passed an order that petitioners submitted that they have no objection in effecting attachment as per Ext.P5, order their only grievance being that the movables after such attachment shall not be detached. This Court directed that the machinery shall not be detached and removed while effecting attachment as per Ext.P5. For that time Ext.P5, order can remain in force in view of the willingness expressed by petitioners to OP(C) No.1915/2011 2 pay the decree amount in installments. The question of installment payment and the amount payable per installment shall be decided by the executing court after hearing both sides. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. It is made clear that it is open to the executing court to proceed with the attachment of the movables pursuant to Ext.P5, order but subject to the direction contained in the order of this Court dated June 22, 2011 that the movables so attached shall not be detached and removed. The Amin could attach the movables and entrust the same to the petitioners on kaichit and report the attachment to the executing court. ii. Petitioners are permitted to request the executing court to permit them to pay the decree amount in installment. In case the request is allowed, the time within which the amount shall be paid and the amount payable per installment shall be decided by the executing court after hearing the parties. iii. In case installment facility is not allowed or any of the installment is defaulted, it is open to the executing court to direct, notwithstanding the order dated June 22, 2011 passed by this Court to proceed with execution against the attached movables for realisation of the amount due to the respondent. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks