C D PAUL Vs. IRINJALAKUDA KURIES AND FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT debtor in E.P.No.62 of 2009 in O.S.No.160 of 2007 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda is the petitioner before me challenging the order issuing warrant of arrest to him on a finding that in spite of having means he has failed to pay the amount. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the finding is without sufficient materials. It is also requested that at any rate, petitioner may be permitted to pay the amount in convenient installments. It is pointed out that petitioner was paying the decree amount in installments at the rate of `.5,000/- per month which the respondent was receiving without a demur. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that there is no reason to interfere with the finding regarding means. Learned counsel points out that respondent No.1 filed E.A.No.1574 of 2010 under Rule 41 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") to direct petitioner and other judgment debtors to produce relevant documents concerning their assets or to give evidence. That application was allowed on 04-10-2010 but nothing transpired at the instance of petitioner or other judgment debtors. Thereafter petitioner and other judgment debtors were set ex parte and acting upon proof affidavit of respondent No.1 executing court has passed impugned order on 12-11-2010. According to the learned counsel, there is evidence to show that petitioner is having 2.47Acres in Varandarappilly Village and that he is a merchant dealing in forest produces. As regards request for time for payment of the amount it is contended that suit was decreed ex parte and set aside at the instance of petitioner and others. At that time request made by petitioners was to grant one years' time to pay the amount which period has already expired. Hence no indulgence is required at the instance of petitioner, it is argued.

(2.) SO far as means is concerned, facts above stated by learned counsel for respondent No.1 are not disputed before me and at any rate, petitioner did not take part in the proceedings in the executing court. I do not find reason to interfere.