IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24968 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.456/2006 IN OS.93/2002 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SREEDHARAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS S/o. VASU NAIR, MANAYATHUCHIRAYIL CHERTHALA P O CHERTHALA BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT: --------------- THARYAN MATHEW, S/o. MATHEW KADAVIL PUTHENPURA FROM KALLARACKAL DADAVIL K R PURAM P O, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE CHERTHALA – 688 541 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.24968 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is judgment debtor No.1 in E.P.No.456 of 2006 in O.S.No.93 of 2002 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Cherthala. Respondent obtained a decree for recovery of money against petitioner and put the decree in execution. On 20-08-2009 executing court found that petitioner has means but has failed/neglected to pay the amount due under the decree and issued warrant of arrest against petitioner. Petitioner filed E.A.No.288 of 2009 to recall warrant. That application was dismissed vide Ext.P6, order dated 15-12-2010 stating that there is no sufficient ground to recall the warrant. Ext.P6, order is under challenge. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner retired from the K.S.R.T.C about three years back and he is yet to get his pensionery benefits. He has three children, college going and finds it difficult to make both ends meet. Petitioner requested that warrant of arrest may be recalled. 2. Order issuing warrant of arrest against petitioner is not under challenge before me and what is under challenge is only Ext.P6, order refusing to recall the warrant. On hearing learned W.P.C.No.24968 of 2010 : 2 : counsel I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P6, order. Hence challenge to Ext.P6, order cannot stand. However having regard to the facts and circumstances stated by learned counsel and since petitioner hopes to get his pensionery benefits from the K.S.R.T.C within a short time and discharge his liability I am inclined to grant him two months' time to pay the amount due under the decree. Resultantly this writ petition is dismissed but, petitioner is granted two (2) months' time from this day to pay amount due under the decree. The warrant of arrest against petitioner will stand in abeyance for the said period of two months subject to condition that petitioner deposited in the executing court for payment to respondent Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) within one month from this day. It is made clear that if petitioner desires to seek installment facility for payment of amount it is open to him to raise that plea before the executing court and if raised executing court shall consider it after hearing counsel for respondent also. In case direction for deposit above stated is not complied within the prescribed time or entire amount is not paid within two months unless in the meantime installment facility is granted by the executing court it will be open to the respondent to proceed with execution against petitioner. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-