IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 CRP.No. 363 of 2011() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/04/2011 IN IA 839/2011 IN OS.NO. 78/2011 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JAMEELA LATHEEF, W/O.KALLARKKAL ABDUL LATHEEF, THAIKKADUKARAYIL HOUSE, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. FADIRUDHIN, S/O.KALLARKKAL ABDUL LATHEEF, THAIKKADUKARAYIL HOUSE, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.RAGHUNATH SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------------------- M.P.BASHEER, S/O.PAKKULATH PERUMBILLI MUHAMMED, KALLAMALA VILLAGE, MANNARCAD TALUK, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 582 BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS.P. JOSEPH, J ------------------------------------ C.R.P.No. 363 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated 11th August, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.78 of 2011 of Court of learned Sub Judge, Ottappalam. That suit is for return of advance money filed by the respondent pursuant to the non- compliance of an agreement for sale of property. According to the respondent, of the total sale consideration, he paid Rs.5.5 lakhs to the petitioners as advance. But on account of breach on the part of petitioners the agreement could not be gone through. He wanted return of advance money with interest and damages for the loss allegedly suffered on account of breach of contract at the hands of petitioners. Respondent filed I.A.No.839 of 2011 for attachment of property of petitioners alleging that he got information from the person mentioned in the affidavit that learning about institution of the suit petitioners attempted to dispose of the property mentioned in the attachment schedule and if it happens, respondent will not be able to realise the decree amount. He also stated that though, for the advance sale consideration there is a statutory charge over the property, that would come into operation, only when a decree is passed. CRP. No.363/11 2 Petitioners preferred objection to the application contending that their liability if any is only to return the advance money. There is no agreement or other understanding to pay interest. Respondent is not entitled to get any damages since breach was on his part. Learned Sub Judge after hearing parties issued the impugned order dated April 5, 2011 directing petitioners to furnish security for Rs. seven lakhs within one month failing which there will be an order of attachment. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that there are legal infirmities in the order under challenge in that there is no averment that there was an attempt on the part of petitioners to protract and delay execution of the decree that may be passed. It is also pointed out that at any rate court below was not justified in directing petitioners to furnish security for Rs. seven lakhs since the advance sale consideration even according to the respondent is only Rs.5.5 lakhs. It is pointed out by learned counsel that compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is claimed by the respondent for flight charges to come to his native place to perform his part of the contract. 3. At the stage of deciding as to for what amount petitioners should furnish security, it is not necessary for the CRP. No.363/11 3 court to go into minute details whether respondent is entitled to claim interest and compensation as he has claimed, or as to who committed the breach. The Trial court has considered the advance amount, interest, costs and other claims made by the respondent and directed petitioners to furnish security for Rs.7,00,000/- ie., Rs.1.5 lakhs in addition to advance sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs. I am not inclined to think that there is any legal infirmity in the said order requiring interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under section 115 of Code of Civil procedure. This original petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOMAS.P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy // P.A. to Judge.