IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 1717 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- ( IA.NO. 3012/2009 AND 3013/2009 IN OS.NO.195/2009 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONER/(PETITIONER/1ST DEFENDANT) ----------------------------------------------------------------- VALSA JOSE,W/O.LATE JOSE,PUTHARICKAL VEEDU,MARKET ROAD,KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF) ------------------------------------------------------------------- ITTY JACOB,S/O.CHACKO,KALARICKAL HOUSE, KADAVANTHRA,KOCHI-682 020. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(C)NO.1717/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/3/2011 IN I.A.3012/2009 & 3013/2009 IN O.S.195/2009 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1717 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT 1st defendant in O.S.No.195 of 2001 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam is the petitioner. Respondent filed the suit for recovery of money against petitioner and her children claiming that the deceased husband of petitioner owed the amount to the respondent. There was an exparte decree passed in favour of the respondent. Petitioner and other defendants sought to set aside that ex parte decree after condoning the delay. Those applications were allowed on condition of petitioner and other defendants depositing the entire plaint claim and on further condition of payment of cost of `1,000/-. The said conditions are under challenge. 2. I have heard learned counsel on both sides. 3. When the matter came up for admission, this Court recorded the submission made on behalf of petitioner that petitioner is prepared to furnish the property inherited by her and other defendants from their predecessor-in- interest as security for the amount due as per the plaint claim. This Court also took note of the fact that there is already an attachment over the said property. 4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides I am inclined to think that instead of directing petitioner and other defendants to deposit the decree amount, it is sufficient that they offered the property belonging to their OP(C)No.1717/2011 2 predecessor-in-interest as security for the plaint claim, interest and cost. But the direction for payment of `1,000/- by way of cost will remain. Resultantly this Original Petition is allowed as follows: i. Condition imposed by the learned Additional Munsiff-II, Ernakulam directing petitioner and other defendants to deposit the sum of `59,000/- in the said court is set aside. Instead, it is directed that petitioner and other defendants shall furnish the property belonging to their predecessor-in- interest and inherited by them as security for the plaint claim, interest and cost so that, in case the suit is decreed, respondent could realise the amount from the said property. Petitioner and other defendants are granted one month's time from this day to furnish security. ii. The cost ordered by the learned Additional Munsiff shall be paid to the respondent within the said period of one month. iii. In case the above conditions are not complied, learned Munsiff shall dispose of the applications as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks