IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 1855 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------ EP. NO.262/2010 IN OS.583/2007 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- N.E.BIJU, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.EAPEN, NERYANTHARA HOUSE, THIRUVARPPU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE CORPORATION BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.C.S.SUNIL THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss OP(C) NO.1855/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS. 583/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM. P2:- COPY OF THE EP. 262/2010 FOR THE REALIZATION OF THE DECREE IN OS. 583/2007 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, KOTTAYAM. P3:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 6.8.2010 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 1000/-. P3(a):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 18.10.2010 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 2000/-. P3(b):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 14.12.2010 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 4000/-. P3(c):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 13.1.2011 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 2000/-. P3(d):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 3.2.2011 FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 2000/-. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 20.11.2010 IN EP.262/2010 IN OS. 583/2007 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.10.2010 IN EA. 216/2010 IN EP. 262/2009. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.2.2011 IN EA. 22/2011 IN EP. 262/2009 IN OS. 583/2007. P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 18.2.2011 IN EA. 31/2011 IN EP. 262/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1855 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the first judgment debtor in E.P.No.262 of 2010 in O.S.No.583 of 2007 of the court of learned Principal Munsiff, Kottayam challenging Ext.P4, order issuing warrant to him on a finding that in spite of having sufficient means he has not paid the amount due. Learned counsel contended that Ext.P4, order is passed merely for the reason that petitioner did not cross examine the witness for respondent. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that substantial amount is due from petitioner and that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 2. It is seen from Ext.P4, order that respondent examined PW1 to prove means of petitioner and second judgment debtor. He was not cross examined, it is admitted. Evidence of PW1 revealed that petitioner is working as an LIC agent and getting income of `30,000/- per month from other sources as well. There was no reason for the executing court to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P4. 3. So far as the alternative prayer for payment of amount in installment, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner has already deposited `15,000/- as per order of this Court dated 14.06.2011 and a further OP(C) No.1855/2011 2 sum of `15,000/- is also deposited in the executing court and that the balance amount due to respondent is around `50,000/-. According to the learned counsel for respondent, more amount than what is stated by learned counsel for petitioner is due. 4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to permit petitioner to pay the balance amount in ten (10) equal monthly installments provided that by the last installment the entire amount due is paid. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: i. Petitioner is permitted to pay the entire balance amount due under the decree in ten (10) equal monthly installments beginning from 01.09.2011 provided that by the last installment the entire amount due shall be paid. ii. Payment/deposit shall be made on or before 5th of each month. In case fifth of a month happens to be a holiday the amount shall be paid/deposited on the next working day. iii. It is made clear that in case there is any two default in payment of the installments it is open to the executing court to proceed with execution against petitioner without any further enquiry as to means. OP(C) No.1855/2011 3 iv. It is directed that execution of warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner will stand in abeyance during the said period of ten months beginning from 01.09.2011 or till the default as above stated is committed, whichever is earlier. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks