IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 CRP.NO. 600 OF 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/09/2010 IN EA.217/2010,EP.7/2008 IN OS.371/2004 OF PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/5TH JUDGMENT DEBTOR ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELSAMMA PHILIP,THAYYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR SOUTH PO,KOTTAYAM-686 603. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DECREE HOLDER& JUDGMENT DEBTORS 1 TO 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH THOMAS, KIZHAKKEDATHU VEETTIL, CHENAPPADY, PAZHAYIDOM PO,ERUMELY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 520. 2. THAYYIL AGENCIES,KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM-686 604. 3. JACOB PHILIP THAYYIL HOUSE,MANJOOR SOUTH PO, KOTTAYAM 686 603. 4. GEORGE PHILIP, THAYYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR SOUTH PO, KOTTAYAM-686 603. 5. JOY PHILIP, THAYYIL HOUSE, MANJOOR SOUTH PO, KOTTAYAM-686 603. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.600 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Judgment debtor No.5 in E.P.No.7 of 2008 in O.S. No.371 of 2004 of the court of learned Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam is the petitioner before me. She challenges the order dated September 2, 2010 on E.A. No.217 of 2010 refusing to give installment facility to her to pay the decree amount as respondent No.1-decree holder was not agreeable. Even according to the petitioner around `.7,00,000/- is due to the decree holder. An extent of 141.20 Ares of land attached is being brought up for sale for recovery of the amount. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner has a share in the said property. 2. Executing court can grant installment facility only if it is consented by the decree holder. Unfortunately for petitioner, decree holder was not amenable for installment facility. Hence executing court cannot be faulted for not granting installment facility. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the property is worth more than Rupees One Crore and that sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt. That of C.R.P. No.600 of 2010 -: 2 :- course is a matter which executing court has to decide at the appropriate stage of the proceeding. Having regard to the quantum of amount involved and difficulties stated by learned counsel on behalf of petitioner I am inclined to grant four months' time to the petitioner from 01.12.2010 to pay the amount due. Resultantly, this Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) If sale of a portion of the property is sufficient to discharge the decree debt it is open to the petitioner or any other judgment debtor to bring that matter to notice of the executing court as provided under law. (ii) Petitioner is granted four (4) months' time from 01.12.2010 to pay the amount due under the decree. (iii) Sale of the property will stand in abeyance during the said period subject to the following conditions: C.R.P. No.600 of 2010 -: 3 :- (a) Petitioner shall deposit in the executing court for payment to respondent No.1-decree holder at the rate of not less than `.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) per month beginning from 01.12.2010 provided that within the time granted by this court the entire liability under the decree is discharged. (b) The deposit aforesaid shall be made on or before the 5th of every month. (c) Before the time schedule fixed for sale of the property petitioner and other judgment debtors who have interest in the property shall file affidavit in the executing court waiving fresh proclamation for such sale. (d) In case of default in deposit C.R.P. No.600 of 2010 -: 4 :- of any installment or the entire liability is not discharged within the time granted as above stated it will be open to the executing court to proceed with sale of property or such portion thereof as is sufficient to satisfy the decree, as provided under law. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv