IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2011 / 9TH BHADRA 1933 OP(C).No. 2497 of 2011(O) ------------------------- E.P.NO.36/2010 IN OS.182/2007 of SUB COURT,KOCHI .................... PETITIONERS: ------------------------ 1. SUGHU, SHANGARADI HOUSE, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD, KOCHI. 2. SAJU, MAREKKA PARAMBIL, EDAVANAKKAD VILLAGE, EDAVANAKKAD, KOCHI. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA). RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- RAVEENDRAN, ANJALESERRY HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA, KOCHI-682 503. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss OPC.NO.2497/2011 O APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.182/2007, SUB COURT, KOCHI. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN O.S.NO.182/2007 SUB COURT, KOCHI. P3: COPY OF I.A.NO.1466/2010 FILED UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 13 CPC IN O.S.NO.182/2007 SUB COURT, KOCHI. P4: COPY OF I.A.NO.1465/2010 PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED IN O.S.NO.182/2007, SUB COURT, KOCHI. P5: COPY OF E.P.NO.36/2010 IN OS.NO.182/2007, SUB COURT, KOCHI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.2497 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Defendants 1 and 4 in O.S.No.182 of 2007 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Kochi is the petitioners before me. Respondent has obtained a decree for recovery of money to the tune of `2,88,000/- with interest and cost. On the trial side, six items of properties belonging to the petitioners were placed under attachment, learned counsel for petitioners submit. Petitioners have filed Exts.P3 and P4, applications to set aside the exparte decree and condone the delay. It is agreed by both sides that the said applications are pending decision. On the execution side, learned Sub Judge directed petitioners to deposit the entire decree amount and cost (as condition for stay of execution). That condition was not complied and hence the execution petition was posted for further steps. In the meantime petitioners have approached this Court with a direction for early disposal of Exts.P3 and P4, applications and in the meantime, to direct learned Sub Judge to keep the execution proceeding in abeyance till disposal of the said application. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it was not necessary to direct petitioners to deposit the entire decree amount since six items of properties belonging to them are already attached. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that the attachment of property is not equivalent to furnishing security and there is no reason why the order of the executing court ought not have been complied by the petitioners. 2. Having heard counsel on both sides I am inclined to think OP(C) No.2497/2011 2 that the order directing deposit of the entire decree amount with interest and cost could be modified to the extent that petitioners need only furnish sufficient security for the amount due under the decree as condition for stay. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of as follows: i. Learned Sub Judge, Kochi is directed to dispose of Exts.P3 and P4, applications as expeditiously as possible (if steps are completed and there is no legal impediment in doing so) having regard to the grievance of petitioner that execution proceeding is going on. ii. The order passed on the execution side directing deposit of the entire decree amount with interest and cost is modified to the extent that petitioners shall furnish sufficient security for the amount due under the decree to the satisfaction of the executing court within a period of one month from this day and subject to that, the execution proceeding shall stand in abeyance until disposal of Exts.P3 and P4, applications. It is made clear that it is open to the petitioner to offer the very same property which is already under attachment as security (if it is sufficient to the satisfaction of the executing court). THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks