IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 9459 of 2010(O) ------------------------- IA NO.156/2010 IN CMA.2/2010 of ADDL.DISTRTICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA EP NO.341/99 IN OS.146/1996 OF SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSRTC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.C.ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, ASRAMAM WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. K.SHAHUL HAMEED, KAMBIKKAKATH, ZILLA COURT, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO FOR R1 SRI.C.A.RAJEEV FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.9459/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4.2.2010 IN IA NO.156/2010 IN CMA 2/2010 OF DISTRICT COURT, ALAPPUZHA EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 2.3.2010 IN EP NO.341/99 IN OS NO.146/1996 //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9459 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Learned counsel for petitioner submits that no relief is sought against respondent No.2 in this Writ Petition and hence notice to respondent No.2 may be dispensed with. The submission is recorded. 2. Petitioner is a garnishee in two suits – O.S.No.146 of 1996 of the court of learned Sub Court, Alappuzha and O.S.No.263 of 1996 of the court of learned Munsiff, Alappuzha. From both the courts there was direction to the petitioner/garnishee to deposit amount in the said courts. As per order from the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha petitioner deposited Rs.40,000/- in that court on 22.08.2000. That was followed by order from the Sub Court, Alappuzha for deposit of the amount in that court. Since the balance amount in the custody of petitioner was only Rs.12,353/- (less the amount deposited in the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha) that amount was deposited in the Sub Court, Alappuzha on 26.03.2001. Petitioner/garnishee filed application in the court of learned Sub Judge to drop proceedings against him since the amount has already been deposited in the manner stated above. Learned Sub Judge was not impressed by that application and directed petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited in the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha and deposit that amount also in the court of learned Sub Judge. In the meantime, learned Sub Judge ordered attachment of WP(C) No.9459/2010 2 computer and accessories belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner challenged that order in C.M.A.No.2 of 2010 in the District Court, Alappuzha. Learned Additional District Judge by Ext.P1, order stayed operation of order of attachment on condition of petitioner giving “sufficient security for the due performance of the order appealed against” to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha. Accordingly, petitioner approached learned Sub Judge to furnish security. But learned Sub Judge insisted for cash security and since petitioner was unable to comply with that, learned Sub Judge issued Ext.P2, order directing sale of property attached. Ext.P2, order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel contends that petitioner was placed in difficult situation as two courts directed deposit of the amount and, in compliance with the first order issued by the learned Munsiff, Alappuzha portion of the amount in the custody of petitioner was deposited in that court and only the balance amount could be deposited in the court of learned Sub Judge as per the subsequent order passed by that court. WP(C) No.9459/2010 3 3. I have gone through the order under challenge and Ext.P1, order issued by the learned Additional District Judge. Ext.P1, order only says that petitioner shall give sufficient security. There is no direction that petitioner has deposited cash security. There is also no reason why, particularly as petitioner is a District level officer of a public undertaking company of the Government that learned Sub Judge should insist for cash security. Insistance for cash security was not warranted. I make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to furnish sufficient security by executing bond or in any other manner and that learned Sub Judge need not insist for cash security. Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed . Ext.P2, order is set aside. It is made clear that learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha need not insist for cash security pursuant to Ext.P1, order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Alappuzha. Petitioner can furnish security in any form to the satisfaction of learned Sub Judge, Alappuzha within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in the court below. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks