IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 16258 of 2006(I)
1. JANARDHANAN,
... Petitioner
2. VELAYUDAN,
3. ABDU REHIMAN,
Vs
1. THE VETTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.A.KRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :29/06/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 16258 OF 2006
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
JUDGMENT
There is no appearance for the respondent-decree holder who
has been served with notice. Impugned in this Writ Petition under
Article 227 filed by the judgment debtor is Ext.P2 order of the execution
court by which that court has found that the petitioner-judgment debtor is
having sufficient means has willfully neglected to pay and on that basis
ordered warrant for his arrest and detention.
2. Submissions of Mr.A.Krishnan, counsel for the petitioner
notwithstanding, I am not persuaded to hold that the impugned order is
vitiated to such an extent as to warrant correction under the supervisory
jurisdiction. The learned Munsiff had the evidence consisting of oral
testimony-PW1 decree holder and also Ext.A1 copy of the registered
sale deed in favour of the petitioner to support the above finding. The
respondent had not adduced any counter evidence.
Under these circumstances Ext.P2 cannot be said to be faulty. At
the time when this Writ Petition came up for admission, this court
granted stay on condition that the petitioner should deposit an amount of
Rs.3,000/- before the court below within two months from 23.06.06. The
submission of Mr.Krishnan that the above condition has been complied
WPC No.16258 of 2006
2
with by the petitioner, is not resisted by anybody. Even as I refuse to
interfere with Ext.P2, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition
directing that the order of stay will continue further on condition that the
petitioner pays on the first of every month commencing from 1st of
August 2007 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- till such time as he discharges the
entire decree debt. Once it is seen that the entire debt is wiped off, it is
open to the petitioner to file an application for recording full satisfaction.
The court below will hear both sides and take a decision, if such
application is filed. In the event of any two defaults in the matter of
remitting the installments, the petitioner will forfeit the benefits of this
judgment.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.16258 of 2006
3