IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2009 / 2ND BHADRA 1931 CRP.No. 808 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/08/2008 IN IA.1406/2008 IN OS.477/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- M/S.PHILLIPS CARBON BLACK LTD.,A COMPAY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE AT 31,NETHAJI SUBHAS ROAD, CALCUTTA-700001,NOW REP.BY ITS P/A HOLDER, SHRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR.P. S/O.LATE K.PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, NOW R/A NEELIMA,EAST KADUNGALLUR,U.C.COLLEGE.P.O.- 02 BY ADVS.MR.DINESH R.SHENOY MR.V.V.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. TRUE LINE CORPORATION, 5/233 B, M.N.G.PUDUR ROAD, SOMAYAMPALAYAM, COIMBATORE - 641 025, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JOSE.G.KURUVINAKKUNNEL. 2. JOSE.G.KURUVINAKKUNNEL,PROPRIETOR, TRUE LINE CORPORATION, -DO- -DO- R1 & R2 BY ADV.MR.A.T.ANILKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NOS.2541/05 & 613/09 IN CRP. NO.808/2008 DISMISSED 24/08/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.No.808 of 2008 - D --------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2009 O R D E R Revision is directed against the order dated 18.8.2008 in I.A.No.1406 of 2008 in O.S.No.477 of 2001 passed by the learned I Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam. an ex-parte decree passed in the above suit was set aside on the application moved by the respondents/defendants condoning the delay of 1150 days. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in that revision by the decree holder/plaintiff. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he does not stand in the way of a decision in the suit on merits subject to furnishing of security for the suit claim by the respondents/defendants. In the revision, the petitioners have produced an application for attaching the properties of the respondents which contained four items. Among these four items, according to the respondents, they do not have subsisting rights over items 2 and 4 and what remain are items 1 and 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that item C.R.P.No.808 of 2008 - D 2 No.3 having an extent of six acres will be furnished as security producing the title deed of that document with nonencumbrance certificate and also an undertaking from the respondents that no charge or encumbrance will be created over the property till the disposal of the suit on its merits. Security furnished will be subject to the decision of the suit till its disposal by the trial court. Having regard to the submissions made and the consensus arrived at, I find no interference with the order impugned in the revision is called for. The respondent shall furnish security and undertaking as represented within a period of 15 days from the date of this order. The learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible, after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in support of their respective case, at any rate, within four months from the date of this order. Revision is disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-