IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No. 30 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2009 IN IA.1447/2009 IN OS.54/2006 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN I.A. - DEFENDANT IN SUIT: ------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RASHEED A.K., S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY MUSALIAR, AGED 44, RESIDING AT A.K.M.HOUSE, FAROKE COLLEGE P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 632. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S) IN I.A. - PLAINTIFF IN SUIT: ---------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMED HAJI, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN HAJI, MALIYAKKAL PUTHADAMMAL, KARUMARAKKAD AMSOM, VAZHAKKAD DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ F. A. O. No.30 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in this appeal is order dismissing an application filed by the appellant, who was the defendant in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of an agreement for sale, to set aside a decree which was passed ex parte against him. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.P.M.Neelakandan, the learned counsel for the appellant and those of Sri.R.Rajesh Kormath who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. We have anxiously gone thorough the F. A. O. No.30 of 2010 -2- impugned order. Even though Sri.Neelakandan, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us strenuously and very fervently requested that the condition imposed by the court below for allowing the application be relaxed by reducing the amount ordered to be deposited, we do not think that we will be justified in doing so. We notice that the explanation offered by the appellant for his non- appearance on the day the suit was decreed ex parte was found by the court below on appreciation of evidence including his own oral evidence to be not convincing. We are not persuaded to think that the condition to deposit Rs.50,000/- as against a claim which was presently inflated to about Rs.6 lakhs is onerous. Significantly, the court below has only directed F. A. O. No.30 of 2010 -3- deposit of the amount obviously with the object of securing the debt to a limited extent. At the same time, we feel that it was too short a time that was granted by the court below for making the deposit. Hence, even as we are inclined to dismiss this appeal, the time for depositing the amount of Rs.50,000/- fixed under the impugned order will stand enlarged till 17/05/10 when the court below re-opens after mid-summer holidays. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-