IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 OP(C).No. 3142 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- O.S.NO.241/2011 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM -------------------- PETITIONER -------------------- GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.VANIYAMKAVIL VELAPPAN, ATGED 61 YEARS, TRIKKADEERI AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- V.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.VANIYAMKAVIL VELAPPAN, THRIKKADEERI AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK-PIN-679 502. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, ALONG WITH OP(C)NO.3143 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.3142/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.241/2011 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. P2 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF IA 2104/2011 IN OS NO.241/2011 AND SCHEDULE. P3 COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA 2104/2011 IN OS NO.241/2011 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN IA 2104/2011 IN OS NO.241/2011 OF SUB COURT, OTTAPALAM DATED 6/8/2011. P5 COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER. P5(A) -DO- -DO- RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).Nos.3142 and 3143 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 30th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Though, these original petitions concern separate orders passed by the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam in separate suits, common questions are involved and hence the same are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. O.P(C).No.3142 of 2011 concerns Ext.P4, order dated 06.08.2011 on I.A.No.2104 of 2011 in O.S.No.241 of 2011. O.P (C).No.3143 of 2011 concerns Ext.P4, order dated 06.08.2011 on I.A.No.2103 of 011 in O.S.No.240 of 2011. Both the suits are filed by the respondent for recovery of money from the petitioner based on demand promissory notes (allegedly) executed by the petitioner. In O.S.No.241 of 2011 the plaint claim is for `.1,11,000/- with interest and cost. In O.S.No.240 of 2011 the claim is for `.1,16,000/- with interest and cost. On the applications filed by the respondent for attachment of the 30cents belonging to the petitioner in survey 124/2 learned Sub Judge issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why he shall not be directed to furnish security. Petitioner filed objection but, O.P(C).Nos.3142 and 3143 of 2011 -: 2 :- learned Sub Judge found that the objections are not tenable so far as the claim for attachment is concerned and directed by Ext.P4, orders to attach the property with a rider that if security is furnished for `.1,25,000/- in O.S.No.241 of 2011 and `.1,35,000/- in O.S.No.240 of 2011 the attachment could be raised. 3. Though, various contentions are raised by learned counsel, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The question whether the demand promissory notes are executed by the petitioner is a matter which the trial court has to decide in the course of trial. Now petitioner has either to suffer the attachment or furnish security. 4. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is prepared to offer landed property as security, if necessary the attached property itself. Rule 6 and 9 of order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for furnishing security (to the satisfaction of the Court concerned). Learned Sub Judge has stated in Ext.P4, orders that petitioner has to furnish security in cash. Therefore it is open to the petitioners to offer landed property as security for the respective claims in the respective suits as directed in Ext.P4, orders to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge. O.P(C).Nos.3142 and 3143 of 2011 -: 3 :- Resultantly these original petitions are disposed of making it clear that it is open to the petitioner to offer landed property as security to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge in both the cases. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-