IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2010 / 21ST JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 10986 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- (E.P. NO.3 OF 2009 OS.152/2007 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD) .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M.A.KASIM, S/O.ALI AHAMMED, ANJUMOORTHY MANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GANGADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- DEVAYANI, W/O.LATE SAHADEVAN, THEKKETHARA, ANJUMOORTHY MANGALAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. ADV. 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 11/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P. NO.3 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.152 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 9.11.2008. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.P. NO.3 OF 2009 DATED 12.6.2009. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2010 IN E.P. NO.3 OF 209 IN O.S. NO.152 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PALAKKAD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: ----------------------------------- NIL TRUE COPY THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.10986 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is judgment debtor in E.P.No.3 of 2009 in O.S. No.152 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Palakkad. Pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2010 finding that in spite of having sufficient means petitioner refused and neglected to pay the amount due under the decree he has been arrested and committed to Civil Prison on 09.06.2010. Learned counsel contends that petitioner was arrested and committed to the Civil Prison without sufficient evidence regarding his means. He also requests that petitioner may be given opportunity to pay the amount due under the decree in ten monthly installments. 2. Learned counsel for respondent/decree holder contends that there is sufficient evidence regarding means of petitioner. Hence impugned order is justified. It is also contended that respondent is not agreeable in granting that much time to the petitioner as requested for, to pay the amount due under the decree. 3. I have gone through the order under challenge. W.P(C) No.10986 of 2010 -: 2 :- Respondent has given evidence about means of petitioner. This Court in Kuppuswamy v. P.G. Menon (1992 [2] KLT 203) has stated that it is not as if the decree holder is required to bring in every details regarding source of income of the judgment debtor and that if some evidence is produced it is for the judgment debtor to adduce contra evidence. In this case respondent has given evidence regarding means of petitioner. There is no contra evidence. As such there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. So far as request for time is concerned I have heard learned counsel for respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner is aged 70 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and also considering submissions of learned counsel for respondent I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay the amount due under the decree in installments. Resultantly, Writ Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioner shall be released from Civil prison on condition that he deposited in the executing court for payment to respondent Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) within one week from this day. W.P(C) No.10986 of 2010 -: 3 :- (ii) On such deposit executing court shall order for release of petitioner. (iii) Petitioner is permitted to pay balance amount due under the decree in eight equal monthly installments beginning from 01.07.2010. (iv) In case of default in payment of any two installments or default in payment of the amount within the time granted it will be open to the respondent to proceed with personal execution pursuant to the order dated 08.02.2010 and without further enquiry as to means of petitioner. (v) Warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner shall remain in abeyance during the time granted for payment or till default is committed as aforesaid. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv