IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 OP(C).NO. 2773 OF 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OS.951/2010 OF III ADDL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- KALATHINGAL BEERANKUTTY,S/O.MAMMADEESA, PANAYATHATTU,KOZHIKODE TALUK,CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, KOLATHARA DESOM DESOM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ M/S.MYSORE TRADE LINK,BIG BAZAR, KOZHIKODE,REP.BY P.V.ABDUL SATHAR,S/O.ABDU, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.2773 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 3.12.2010 IN I.A. NO.5028 OF 2010 IN O.S. NO.951 OF 2010 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2010 IN I.A. NO.49 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A. NO.49 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.951 OF 2010. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ON I.A. NO.49 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.951 OF 2010. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.2773 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No.951 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-III, Kozhikode. Respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs.12,41,044 with interest thereon and got a conditional attachment of two items of property belonging to the petitioner – the first item being 36 cents and the second item being 5 cents. There was also a direction to the petitioner to show cause why he shall not furnish security for the plaint claim. Petitioner did not show cause, nor furnish security and instead filed Ext.P2, application seeking permission of learned Sub Judge to sell 6.15 cents made up of item No.2 and 1.15 cents from item No.1 to a third person pursuant to an agreement for sale petitioner is said to have entered into with the said person. Petitioner contended that item No.1, 36 cents is valued at Rs.75,00,000/-. That request was disallowed by the learned Sub Judge by Ext.P4, order which is under challenge. 2. Learned counsel contended that the only ground for learned Sub Judge dismissing the application is that copy of the O.P(C) No.2773 of 2011 -: 2 :- agreement produced by the petitioner does not show boundaries of property (allegedly) agreed to be sold and that at any rate he has not offered security for the plaint claim. Learned counsel submitted that item No.1 itself is valued at Rs.75,00,000/- 3. Though an order of conditional attachment was issued and petitioner was called upon to show cause against furnishing security, he has not complied with that order. Instead, he came with Ext.P2, application to permit him to sell a portion of the property placed under conditional attachment. That request was rejected by the learned Sub Judge. Here is a case where respondent claims more than Rs.12 lakhs in the plaint together with interest and costs. In such a situation I do not find reason to interfere. It is open to the petitioner to show cause against conditional attachment and if necessary furnish security to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge. There is no reason to interfere with the order. Original Petition is dismissed without prejudice to that right of petitioner. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv