K HAMSA Vs. CANARA BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS/judgment debtors in E.P.No.59 of 2010 in O.S.No.168 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Manjeri have suffered a money decree and even as per Ext.P1, execution petition the amount due as on that day is `.4,22,286/-. Respondent wanted personal execution against petitioners and examined its representative as PW1 and proved Exts.A1 to A4. As per that evidence, petitioners have sufficient means to discharge the liability. PETITIONERS did not adduce any contra evidence. Based on that evidence, learned Sub Judge on 19-08-2010 issued warrant of arrest to the petitioners. The warrant could not so far be executed. PETITIONERS challenge Exts.P3 and P4, orders repeating warrant of arrest to them on 04-09-2010 and 12-10-2010.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel on both sides. Though various contentions are raised in this petition, learned counsel for petitioners now seek time for payment of the amount due under the decree. He as asked for six months' time to discharge the liability. Learned counsel for respondent states that time asked for is excessive and that the loan was availed much before 2009. Having regard to the facts and circumstances stated by learned counsel for petitioners I am inclined to grant four months' time from 01-12- 2010 to discharge the liability under the decree. Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines: Petitioners are granted four(4) months' time from 01-12-2010 to discharge the liability under the decree subject to conditions: