MATHOO PAULO Vs. KUNJUVARIATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 against whom a decree for money was passed applied under Act 31 of 1958 (Kerala) for permission to pay the decree amount in instalments as provided by the Act. Holding that the 1st defendant was not an agriculturist the court below allowed relief only to the 2nd defendant who was found to be an agriculturist. The 1st defendant has therefore preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The first defendants case is that even though he is not an agriculturist he is entitled to some relief as the 2nd defendant has been allowed to pay the amount in instalments. The relief as indicated by counsel for the petitioner is that the decree cannot be executed until the 2nd defendant completes payment of the reduced sum or at any rate, until he commits default in payment. Reliance is placed on Clause.2 of S.3 and Clause.4 of S.10 of the Act. S.3 [2] lays down the principles for the award of costs in suits filed against an agriculturist or an agriculturist and non agriculturist together as the case may be and this has no bearing on the question raised in this Revision Petition, S.10 (4) states:

(3.) We therefore confirm the order of the court below and dismiss the Civil Revision Petition with costs.