M. Kesavalu vs A. Ravichandran and P.S. Jayavelu

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner in both revisions. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, the Judgment Debtor in E.P. No. 82/2005 in O.S. No. 30 of 2001 and E.P. No. 107 of 2005 in O.S. No. 34 of 2001 respectively on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ambur, Vellore District, a retired teacher was discharging the decree amount in the above mentioned Execution petitions by paying Rs. 500/-per mensum regularly upto 22.10.2007 in both the execution petitions. But on 22.10.2007, the learned Execution Court had directed the Judgment Debtor to pay not less than Rs. 1000/- for the next hearing. Thereafter, the Judgment Debtor had committed default since he could not realise the said amount of Rs. 1000/- in each execution petition which resulted in the order of arrest against him on 7.1.2008 which is being challenged under these revision petitions.

A perusal of the adjudication paper available in the typed set of papers in both the execution petitions will go to show that from 14.12.2006 onwards, the Judgment Debtor was paying a sum of Rs. 500/- regularly on all hearings. Under such circumstances, without giving any consideration for the availability of sufficient means of the Judgment Debtor to pay the balance of the amount at the rate of Rs. 1000/- , the learned executing Court has directed the Judgment Debtor to pay not less than Rs. 1000/- in each execution petition on 22.10.2007 which in my view requires interference from this Court.

In fine, both civil revision petitions are allowed and the order passed by the executing Court directing the Judgment Debtor to pay not less than Rs. 1000/- dated 22.10.2007 is hereby set aside and the orders of arrest passed by the learned Executing Court on 7.1.2008 in both execution petitions are also set aside and the Judgment Debtor is permitted to pay the balance of EP amount in instalment at the rate of Rs. 500/- per mensum commencing from 15.4.2009 without any default. If any default is committed by the revision petitioner in paying the said amount, then the decree holder is entitled to proceed against him in accordance with law. With this observation, both the execution petitions shall ordered to be closed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.