Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2005 (MAD)

Selvam v. R. K. R. Selvaraj

2013-06-13

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against E.P.No.12/2011 in O.S.No.40/2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Thiruvarur whereby warrant of arrest is issued in execution of the decree made in O.S.No.40/2007. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. 3. Admittedly the petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.40/2007 on the file of the Sub-Court, Pattukottai, suffered a decree whereby the trial Court directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.2,37,825/- with interest to the respondent herein by its judgment dated 06.03.2009. As the amount decreed by the trial Court was not paid by the petitioner, an execution petition came to be filed in E.P.No.12/2011 for recovering the said decreetal amount and by sending him to civil prison as stipulated under Order 21 Rule 38 and Section 55 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is seen that in the said execution proceedings, warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 24.08.2012 as the petitioner did not make payment and also remained absent. It is also seen that in the said execution petition, the petitioner had already executed a Muchilika undertaking to pay the claim in the execution petition on or before 23.04.2012 and if such payment was not made, the petitioner has specifically undertaken that he is willing to abide by the order passed by the Court below. Inspite of giving such undertaking, the petitioner did not make further payment and a consequential order of arrest was made on 24.08.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as against the execution claim, so far the petitioner has paid only Rs.50,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.2,63,098/- is payable by the petitioner and he specifically pleaded that the petitioner is a poor man and therefore, he is not in a position to pay the balance amount in lump sum and therefore, prays for grant of time for making balance payment in instalments. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that inspite of having means, the petitioner had failed to pay the decreetal amount and consequently, the execution petition came to be filed and the consequential order of arrest was passed, as the petitioner did not make payment inspite of executing Muchilika as stated supra. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that inspite of having means, the petitioner had failed to pay the decreetal amount and consequently, the execution petition came to be filed and the consequential order of arrest was passed, as the petitioner did not make payment inspite of executing Muchilika as stated supra. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the Court below, which is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition, does not warrant interference. However, insofar as the claim made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in making the balance payment in monthly instalments, the learned counsel for the respondent is not having any serious objection, but submitted that the instalments cannot be stretched for a long time and therefore, reasonable time shall be given to the petitioner to effect payment. 6. Admittedly, in the dispute between the parties, the petitioner has suffered a decree and the decree has become final. The execution petition filed against the petitioner is of the year 2011 and the petitioner, having executed the Muchilika as early as on 30.03.2012 to pay the amount claimed in the execution petition on or before 23.04.2012, did not paid the balance amount and the consequential order of arrest has been passed by the Court below. At any event, as the petitioner has come forward before this Court in making the balance payment in monthly instalments and in order to meet the ends of justice, the petitioner is directed to make the balance payment of Rs.2,63,098/- in ten monthly instalments commencing from 1st July 2013. The first instalment shall be paid by the petitioner on or before 01.07.2013 and the balance instalment should be paid without any default every month on or before first day of the respective month. If any default is committed by the petitioner in making the monthly instalments to the respondent, the order made by the execution Court in arresting the petitioner will be revived without any further reference to this Court. 7. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.