IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 637 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2009 IN EA.559/2009 IN EP.1476/2007 IN OS.990/2004 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR: --------------------------------------------------- NALINAKSHAN,S/O. P.RAMAN MENON, G.16, CAPITAL HOMES, PUSHPAGIRI, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR -2. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------- VIKAS FUNDS & JURIES (P) LTD., PUTHENPEEDIKA, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.637 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the 2nd judgment debtor in E.P.No.1476 of 2007 in O.S.No.990 of 2004 on the file of the IInd Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Decree executed in the above execution petition was one passed in a suit for money. Petitioner was one among the sureties to the chitty amount priced by the 1st judgment debtor from the decree holder/a chitty concern. In the execution proceedings, petitioner/2nd judgment debtor was declared ex parte, and later, an order of attachment at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from his salary was ordered. At that stage, he moved an application, namely, E.A.No.559 of 2009 seeking for setting aside the order declaring him ex parte submitting that no notice of the proceedings was served on him. The learned Munsiff, after considering the merit of the application and hearing the counsel on both sides, allowed it on terms directing the CRP.637/09 2 petitioner to deposit one half of the decree amount as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing the impugned order in the revision, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. The direction issued to the petitioner/2nd judgment debtor to deposit one half of the decree amount for setting aside the order declaring him ex parte in the execution proceedings, appear to be inequitable. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, the impugned order is modified directing the petitioner/2nd judgment debtor to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) within three weeks from the date of this order for setting aside the order declaring him ex parte in the proceedings. In case, the amount is deposited, the court below shall pass appropriate orders for vacating the order of CRP.637/09 3 attachment previously passed directing recovery from the salary of the petitioner towards the decree debt, and the petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to raise his objections to the execution of the decree. With the above observations, the revision petition is disposed. Handover a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy of the order to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp