IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 657 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN E.P.NO.62 OF 2009 IN O.S.NO.160 OF 2007 DTED 12.11.2010 ON the FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA REVN. PETITIONER/1ST JUDGMENT DEBTOR/1st DEFENDANT: --------------------- C.D.PAUL, AGED 58, S/O.C.P.DEVASSY, CHATHELI HOUSE, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MANAKULANGARA DESOM, P.O.MANAKULANGARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER AND JUDGMENT DEBTORS 2 TO 4/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4: -------------------------------------------- 1. IRINJALAKUDA KURIES AND FINANCE (P) LTD., MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ABDUL RAHIMAN, KARAPAMVEETTIL MUHAMMED, MANAVALASSERY VILLAGE. 2. K.C.JAMES, S/O.K.I.CHACKO, KIDANGATH HOUSE, KODAKARA VILLAGE, MANAKULANGARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. M.I.JOY, S/O.ITTOOP, MANJALI HOUSE, VARANDARAPPILLY VILLAGE, P.O.VARANDARAPPILLY, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. SLEEN, S/O.K.L.LONA, CHENEDAN HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.657 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of December, 2010 ORDER Judgment debtor in E.P.No.62 of 2009 in O.S.No.160 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner before me challenging the order issuing warrant of arrest to him on a finding that in spite of having means he has failed to pay the amount. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the finding is without sufficient materials. It is also requested that at any rate, petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount in convenient installments. It is pointed out that petitioner was paying the decree amount in installments at the rate of `.5,000/- per month which the respondent was receiving without a demur. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that there is no reason to interfere with the finding regarding means. Learned counsel points out that respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.1574 of 2010 under Rule 41 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) to direct petitioner and other judgment debtors to produce relevant documents concerning their assets or to give evidence. That application was allowed on 04-10-2010 but nothing transpired at C.R.P.No. 657 of 2010 : 2 : the instance of petitioner or other judgment debtors. Thereafter petitioner and other judgment debtors were set ex parte and acting upon proof affidavit of respondent No.1 executing court has passed impugned order on 12-11-2010. According to the learned counsel, there is evidence to show that petitioner is having 2.47Acres in Varandarappilly Village and that he is a merchant dealing in forest produces. As regards request for time for payment of the amount it is contended that suit was decreed ex parte and set aside at the instance of petitioner and others. At that time request made by petitioners was to grant one years' time to pay the amount which period has already expired. Hence no indulgence is required at the instance of petitioner, it is argued. 2. So far as means is concerned, facts above stated by learned counsel for respondent No.1 are not disputed before me and at any rate, petitioner did not take part in the proceedings in the executing court. I do not find reason to interfere. 3. Then the next question is whether petitioner should be permitted to pay the amount in installments. True, it is not as if petitioner is penniless, but, fact remained that petitioner used to pay the decree amount at the rate of `.5,000/-. Having regard C.R.P.No. 657 of 2010 : 3 : to the circumstances stated by learned counsel for petitioner I am inclined to grant five months' time from 15-01-2011 to pay the amount due under the decree but subject to conditions. Resultantly this petition is disposed of granting petitioner five (5) months' time from 15-01-2011 to pay the amount due under the decree. The warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of five months subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall deposit the amount due as per the decree in the executing court for payment to respondent No.1 in five equal monthly installments beginning from 15-01-2011 provided that by the last installment the entire amount due is deposited. (ii) Deposit shall be made on or before 15th of each month and in case that happens to be a holiday it shall be made on the next working day. (iii) In case there is default in deposit of any installment or the entire amount due under the decree is not deposited within the time granted hereby, it will be open to respondent No.1 to proceed against petitioner by personal execution without any further enquiry as to means. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-