IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 150 of 2008()
1. SANKARJEE, S/O.CHENNAMKULANGARA KESEVAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. INVEST CHITTS &
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :19/02/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
---------------------------
C.R.P.No.150 OF 2008
--------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2008
O R D E R
~~~~~~~
This revision petition is preferred against the order of the IInd
Additional Munsiff, Thrissur in E.P.No.19/2007 in O.S.No.1240/2005.
The execution petition is for realisation of the decree amount and
PW1 deposed that the judgment debtor has got a car and is deriving
a monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. There was a suggestion made to the
decree holder that the car has been sold in the year 2001. But the
court made it clear that no materials are furnished by the judgment
debtor. So far as the immovable property is concerned, the court
held that there is evidence to show that the immovable property has
been transferred. Therefore, the court accepted the testimony of
the decree holder and ordered issuance of warrant.
2. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the
document to evidence that the car has been sold in 2004. I am not
inclined to accept that document at this stage for the reason that
there was lot of opportunities for the judgment debtor to produce
those documents at the relevant time. Applying the principles of
reception of additional documents under Order XLI Rule 27 of Code
of Civil Procedure, I feel this is not a case where this can be
accepted at this stage. I am also informed that though the decree
C.R.P.No.150/2008 2
provided for six months time, the execution petition has been
filed before six months and therefore, it is also a defect. But
much water has flown thereafter and now I do not want to
dismiss the execution petition on a technical ground, but at the
same time I think indulgence can be shown to the judgment
debtor with a direction to pay the amount due in some
installments. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of as
follows:
i) The revision petitioner is directed to pay the amount
due in six monthly equal installments commencing from
26.3.2008.
ii) If he commits default on the first installment or
thereafter two consecutive installments, the benefit conferred on
him shall be forfeited and the decree holder can request the
court to issue fresh arrest warrant for realisation of the amount.
In the light of this order, the court below is directed not to
execute the warrant of arrest for the time being.
(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)
ps