IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 532 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP.175/2007 IN OS.500/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------------- DR. RAJAN VARGHESE, PANAKKAMATTATHU VEEDU, PAKKIL.P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. R. SREELATHA, SREE NILAYAM, AALA KARA, CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 121. 2. NNAN'S INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL (NIT) EDUCATION SOCIETY, NINAN'S COMPLEX, PULIMMOODU JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANJU RAJAN. 3. NIRMALA RAJAN, PANAKKAMATTATHU VEEDU, PAKKIL.P.O., KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE, SMT.V.T.LITHA, SMT.P.J.JINIMOL, SMT.SHOBHA ABRAHAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OP(C) NO.532/2010 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 12/10/2010 IN E.A.NO.155 OF 2009 IN E.A.NO.155 OF 2009 IN E.P.NO.175 OF 2007 IN O.S.NO.500OF 2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.532 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Exhibit P1, order passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam in E.A. No.155 of 2009 in E.P. No.175 of 2007 in O.S. No.500 of 2004 directing the Garnishee to deposit in court `.2,60,198/- out of the amount in deposit No.CD 258/1 in the name of judgment No.1 is under challenge in this petition. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-decree holder has raised a preliminary objection as to maintainability of the petition at the instance of petitioner-judgment debtor No.2 since according to the learned counsel amount in deposit belonged to judgment debtor No.1, Ninans Industrial and Technological Education Society (for short, “the NIT”) which is represented in the execution proceeding by its Managing Director. It is however pointed out by learned counsel that petitioner-judgment debtor No.2 is the Chairman of the NIT (judgment debtor No.1). Since it is not disputed before me that petitioner is Chairman of the NIT (judgment debtor No.1), I am persuaded to think that he is O.P(C) No.532 of 2010 -: 2 :- competent to challenge the order against judgment debtor No.1. 3. It is submitted by respondent No.1 that the amount attached had already been deposited in the court by the Bank concerned and respondent No.1 has filed application for the issue of cheque. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the minimum amount to be maintained in the deposit to avoid loss of recognition for judgment debtor No.1 (NIT) is Rupees Fifty lakhs and that the attachment and withdrawal of the amount will cause a short fall in the minimum required amount. Learned counsel states that petitioner is willing to deposit the entire amount due under the decree within four months from 03.01.2011. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to give time to the petitioner to deposit the decree debt but subject to conditions. Resultantly, Original Petition is disposed of in the following lines: (i) Petitioner is permitted to deposit in the executing court for payment to respondent No.1 the amount due under the decree in four equal monthly installments (beginning from 03.01.2011) provided O.P(C) No.532 of 2010 -: 3 :- that by the last installment the entire amount due under the decree shall be deposited. (ii) The deposit above stated shall be made on or before the 5th of every month and in case that day happens to be a holiday, the deposit shall be made on the next working day. (iii) In case of default in deposit of any installment or the entire amount is not deposited within the time granted hereby, it will be open to respondent No.1-decree holder to withdraw the amount due from the amount deposited in court by the Bank pursuant to the impugned order. (iv) Respondent No.1 is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by petitioner in the court below pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 02.11.2010. Amount deposited by the Bank in the court below shall remain in such deposit during the said period of four months or till there is violation of any of the conditions mentioned above. On O.P(C) No.532 of 2010 -: 4 :- fulfillment of the above conditions and payment of the entire amount due under the decree it will be open to the petitioner- judgment debtor No.2 or judgment debtor No.1 to request the court to send the amount back to the Bank concerned. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv