IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31866 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 1302/09 IN OS.410/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUMARI MINI S.S., D/O.SANTHAPPAN, AGED 39, KURISUVILAKATHU VEEDU, BARMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, PATTOM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SRI.P.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. C.S.UNNI, AGED ABOUT 48, PILAVILA VEEDU, TC 1/127, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRABHA, W/O.C.S.UNNI, PILAVILA VEEDU, TC 1/127, POONTHI ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31866 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S No.410 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is for recovery of money, and the respondents are the defendants. An exparte decree was passed in the suit. Respondents moved for setting aside the exparte decree by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court allowed that application subject to the condition that the respondents have to deposit one half of the decree amount in the suit as a condition precedent for setting aside the exparte decree. The direction to deposit one half of the decree amount for setting aside the exparte decree was challenged by the defendants by filing a writ petition before this W.P.(C).No.31866 OF 2009 Page numbers court. Ext.P5 is the judgment rendered in that petition. This court modified the order of the court below stating that it is open to the respondents/defendants to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court below for the entire debt involved in the suit. On the request made by the respondents to accept the property which had been attached as security this court permitted them to do so leaving open the question whether it would be sufficient security for consideration of the trial court. Pursuant thereto, a report from the Village Officer showing the valuation of the property was produced, which indicated that the property having an extent of 10 cents, is worth Rs.3,03,750/- (Rupees three lakh three thousand seven hundred and fifty only) and the building in that property has value of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The court below accepted the report of the Village Officer and passed Ext.P15 order holding that the W.P.(C).No.31866 OF 2009 Page numbers attached property can be treated as sufficient security in compliance of the order for setting aside the exparte decree. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the present writ petition by the petitioner/plaintiff invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the value of the property is much less than what is recorded by the Village Officer and even the building that was constructed in the property was under the Peoples Planning Programme. Other attachments for more than rupees one lakh are W.P.(C).No.31866 OF 2009 Page numbers subsisting over the property and, so much so, the security furnished by the respondents is not sufficient to satisfy the suit claim, is the submission of the learned counsel. It is further submitted, the court below has accepted the attached property as sufficient security without taking note of the observations made by this court in Ext.P5 judgment that the respondents/defendants have to furnish security for the entire debt involved in the suit. 3. Perusing Ext.P5 order with reference to the other exhibits tendered in the writ petition and also taking note of the submissions made by the counsel, I find any enquiry by this court on the sufficiency of security which was found acceptable to the court below may only delay and protract the trial of the suit which had been instituted as early in 2002. I do find there is some force in the submission of the learned counsel that even W.P.(C).No.31866 OF 2009 Page numbers accepting the valuation certificate of the Village Officer, the property offered with attachments subsisting over that property may not constitute as sufficient security for the entire suit claim. Suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.3,03,750/-. After the lapse of so many years if it is decreed with interest and cost the sum thereof is likely to exceed the amount at which the suit property is valued by the Village Officer. But for that reason, and also on the observations made in Ext.P5 judgment, I find it is not proper and appropriate for this court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the court below in forming an opinion that the attached property can be treated as sufficient security. But it is open to the petitioner/plaintiff to seek for attachment of any other property belonging to the defendants/judgment debtors by taking appropriate steps thereof, and in case any such application is moved, the court below is directed to pass appropriate orders on such W.P.(C).No.31866 OF 2009 Page numbers application. I direct the court below to dispose the suit as expeditiously as possible having regard to the fact that the plaintiff has filed the suit nearly seven years ago and in view of the proceedings taken by the defendants for setting aside the exparte decree passed earlier, it is still pending on the file of the court. Suit shall be given top priority. Writ petition is disposed as indicated above. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv