IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 OP(C).No. 2002 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 464/2011 IN OS.73/2011 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR PETITIONER: -------------------- ANILKUMAR, S/O.SIVANANDAN, AGED 41 YEARS, PERUSSERIL ANUPAM VEEDU, KOTTARAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.I.DINESH MENON SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON RESPONDENT: -------------------- VENU K.NAIR, AGED 38 YEARS, SOMA VILASAM, PATHIRICKAL MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUM - 689 695. ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.464 OF 2011. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P1. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.464 OF 2011 IN O.S.NO.73 OF 2011 DATED 12.4.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(C). NO. 2002 OF 2011 O ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is the defendant in O.S.No.73 of 2011, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff of Punalur, challenges the order dated 12.4.2011 in I.A.No.464 of 2011, by which, the court below directed the defendant to furnish security for the plaint claim within fifteen days or such other time as sought for by the defendant to avoid attachment. The court below also held that in the mean time the scheduled property would be under attachment. 2. When the Original Petition came up for admission on 24.6.2011, the following order was passed: “After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in great detail, I am not inclined to admit the Original Petition. The order passed by the court below is legal and proper and no grounds are made out for interference. As per the order dated 12.4.2011, the court below granted fifteen days' time O.P.(C) NO.2002 OF 2011 :: 2 :: to the petitioner to furnish security to avert an order of attachment. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a reasonable time may be granted to the petitioner to furnish security. Only to consider that aspect of the case, issue notice by special messenger to the respondent. Post on 29.6.2011.” 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no objection in granting a reasonable time to the petitioner to furnish security. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner/defendant is granted fifteen days' time from today to furnish security before the court below in compliance with the order dated 12.4.2011 in I.A.No.464 of 2011. In other respects, the challenge against the order passed by the court below is rejected. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/