IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).NO. 22052 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.880/2009 IN AS.367/2008 OF D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM OS.316/2006 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- JOSEPH VARGHESE,S/O.VARGHESE, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,EDAKULANGARA PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ VINCENT JOHN,S/O.JOHN,WEST PLAVILA, KALLELUBHAGOM,KARUNAGAPPALLY-690518, KOLLAM DISTRICT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No.22052 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by the condition imposed by leaned District Judge, Kollam while granting stay of execution of the decree under challenge in A.S. No.367 of 2008 as per order dated 20.2.2010 on I.A. No.888 of 2009. Condition imposed is that petitioner has to furnish security for amount due under the decree, interest and costs within one month from 8.04.2010. Learned counsel states that petitioner is not in a position to furnish security. That contention cannot be accepted in view of Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure under which no stay of decree could be granted except on furnishing security for due performance of the decree. 2. It is then contented by learned counsel that petitioner has only one item of property which is subject to an equitable mortgage and that petitioner is willing to furnish that property as security. That is not a matter which this Court has to consider in this petition. It is for the trial or appellate court as the casse may be to consider whether security furnished is sufficient and if any W.P(C) No.22052 of 2010 -: 2 :- clarification in that regard is required, petitioner can approach learned District Judge with appropriate application. 3. It is seen that time for furnishing security has already run out. If petitioner wants extension of time for furnishing security that also is a matter which petitioner has to request before learned District Judge. These are not matters for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is closed subject to the observation made above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv