IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 OP(C).No. 8 of 2011(O) I.A.NO.2490/2010 IN O.S.NO.523/06 OF SUB COURT, KOLLAM. PETITIONER -------------------- R.ANANDAKUMAR, S/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDIYAR, 'DHANAMS', KUTCHERRY WARD,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT: --------------- RAVEENDRAN, PANAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM ULIYAKOVIL P.O.-691547. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 8 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, the defendant in O.S.No.523 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam, filed I.A.No.1316 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree. The trial court dismissed the application. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed F.A.O.No.17 of 2010, which was allowed by the Division Bench subject to three conditions. The first condition was that the appellant shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court for the plaint claim within three months from the date of the judgment. 2. It is stated that conditions 2 and 3 in the judgment in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010 were complied with. The petitioner has also made the necessary application for accepting security. But the security furnished was found to be not proper. The petitioner prayed for time to produce bond. The court below, as per the order dated 12.10.2010 rejected the request on the ground that time for O.P.(C) NO.8 OF 2011 O :: 2 :: production of bond was fixed by the High Court in the judgment in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010 and, therefore, the court below could not extend the time. The order dated 12.10.2010 is under challenge in this Original Petition. 3. The court below was right in holding that it could not extend the period for producing the bond. The period was fixed by the High Court in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010. Only the High Court could extend the time. Therefore, the challenge against the order dated 12.10.2010 is unsustainable. Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of this Original Petition should not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate relief in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010. It is made clear that the dismissal of this Original Petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to apply for extension of time in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/