IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 36450 of 2004(L)
1. SETHUMADHAVAN,
... Petitioner
2. NARAYANANKUTTY S/O. POOYATH RAMAN,
3. VISWAMBRAN,
4. RAMACHANDRAN,
5. MOHANAN, KODAKARA VILLAGE,
Vs
1. JEWEL ROCK HIRE PURCHASE AND KURIES
... Respondent
2. SASIKUMAR, S/O. VENUGOPALAN NAIR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :09/08/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 36450 OF 2004
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2007
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is remaining defective on the reason that the 2nd
respondent who was the principal debtor in the decree has not been
served with notice. I am of the view that, in the nature of this case, it is
not necessary that the principal debtor be served with notice since the
liability of the petitioners is concededly co-existent with that of the
principal debtor.
2. Under Ext.P1, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the
application filed by the petitioner for grant of 2 years time for settling the
liability. Under Ext.P2, the learned Subordinate Judge also noticed that
no contention that the petitioners are not having means had been raised
out and on that basis and also noticing the delay caused in the matter of
discharging the decree debt, issued warrant for arresting them.
3. Heard both sides. This court became inclined to grant stay of
further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 by imposing condition that a sum
of Rs.5,000/- be paid within a period of one month. It appears to me
that this court became impressed by the claims made in paragraph 3 of
the statement of facts to the Writ Petition. It would appear the
petitioners were paying regularly at the rate of Rs.5,000/-. Learned
WPC No.36450 of 2004
2
counsel for the respondent-decree holder submits that all the payments
except the payment dt.17.3.04 mentioned in that paragraph were made
against claims in a previous EP and only the last payment was towards
the present EP. Inclusive of that payment, only Rs.10,000/- has been
paid. There is no serious dispute to this submission of the learned
counsel.
Having considered the relevant circumstances which attend on
this case and also the circumstance that the 2nd respondent who is
employed abroad is the principal debtor, I dispose of the Writ Petition by
issuing the following orders:
I set aside Exts.P1 and P2 but on condition that the petitioners
shall pay every month commencing from the first of September 2007 at
the rate of Rs.6,500/- towards the decree debt. In the event of any two
defaults, Exts.P1 and P2 will revive. But, if the petitioners regularly
make payments as ordered above, on the first of every month at the rate
of Rs.6,500/- and they become confident that having paid off the entire
decree debt, they will file an application before the court below for
recording full satisfaction and the court below will pass appropriate
orders on that application, after hearing both sides.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.36450 of 2004
3
WPC No.36450 of 2004
4