IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 FAO.No. 81 of 2011() ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.326/2007 IN OS.70/2003 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA DATED 31/1/2011) .................... APPELLANT /PETITIONER/DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------------------- CHITHRASAGAR, THOPPILL VEETTIL, PERUMTHURUTHU, KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS/ ADDITIONAL PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.D.BIJU, S/O.DASAN, THOTTATHUSSERIL, MUHAMMA.P.O., ALAPPUZHA.PIN- 688 525. 2. THULASI, W/O.DASAN, -DO- -DO- 3. BAIJU, S/O. DASAN, -DO- -DO- 4. VINU, -DO- -DO- BY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S. SATHEESACHANDRN, JJ. ........................................... F.A.O.NO.81 OF 2011 ............................................. Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Notice to respondents dispensed with preserving their right to seek re-hearing of this matter if aggrieved by the contents of this judgment. 2. The court below set aside an ex parte decree and granted the appellant an opportunity to contest the suit on condition that he furnishes security to the satisfaction of the court for the debt due under the decree that was being set aside. The appellant furnished security. By the order dated 31.1.2011 the court below dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree on the ground that the security offered is not adequate. For one thing, a decision on the question of sufficiency or otherwise of the security that is offered is itself one that should contain reasons. The court should express reasons why the security is adequate. Not only that, the appellant could have been F.A.O.NO.81 OF 2011 : 2 : granted opportunity to provide materials justifying his stand about the sufficiency of the security. He could have also been granted a further opportunity to provide better security. But the order dated 31.1.2011 does not state any such reasons. Therefore, we set aside that order and direct the court below to reconsider the issue within fifteen days. 3. The appellant says that he has offered 4.5 cents as security. He can provide valuation certificate of that property and also offer any other security, if that becomes necessary. To enable this process, we direct that distress action by way of warrant or otherwise as against the person of the appellant would stand deferred for a period of one month. The appeal ordered accordingly. Issue copy today itself. sd/= THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. sd/= S.S. SATHEESACHANDRN, JUDGE. cl /true copy/ P.A. to Judge.