PARAMASIVAN Vs. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT appears through counsel.

(2.) THESE Original Petitions are in challenge of the order issuing warrant of arrest to the petitioner/judgment debtor, common in E.P. Nos.51, 50 and 52 of 2010 in O.S. Nos.449, 460 and 457 of 2006, respectively of the court of learned Munsiff, Chittur. Grievance of petitioner is that he has been paying the decree debtin each execution petition at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. On 03.06.2011 he paid a further amount also. But notwithstanding that, executing court ordered warrant of arrest to the petitioner. It is contended that the impugned orders are bad in law. Learned counsel for respondent pointed out that even copy of the impugned orders are not produced and at any rate there is no reason to interfere with the same.

(3.) HAVING heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that the proper course is to permit petitioner to request the executing court to allow him pay the amount in convenient installments after hearing counsel for respondent as well. Resultantly, these Original Petitions are disposed of directing that warrant of arrest issued to the petitioner in the aforesaid execution petitions will stand in abeyance for a period of two months from this day, on condition that petitioner deposits in the executing court for payment to the respondent `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in each case within two weeks from this day. In case the said condition is violated it will be open to the executing court to proceed against petitioner pursuant to the finding already entered. Petitioner is permitted to urge his request for installment facility to pay off the amount due under the execution petitions in the executing court. If any such request is made the executing court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders expeditiously having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case after hearing learned counsel for respondent as well.