IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 OP(C).No. 1070 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2010 IN IA 3263/2008 IN LAR.98/1998 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ K.T.KARUNAKARAN, S/O.UNICHOYIL, PUTHIYOTTIL, KOTTOLI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), NH-1, KOZHIKODE-673001. 2. K.T.KUNHIPERACHAN, S/O.UNICHOYI, PUTHIYOTTIL, KOTOOLI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673001. 3. M.K.DATHAN, MORIYIL, THODUPUZHA-685584. 4. K.T.RADHA, W/O.RAJU, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, CHEVAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673001. 5. AJITHA SREEDHARAN, D/O.KARUNAKARAN, THIRUVATTUKANDI, BALUSSERRY-673612. 6. K.T.LEELA, W/O.SOMAN, KADALUNDI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK-673302. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.1070 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT Claimant No.3 in L.A.R. No.98 of 1998 of the court of learned Principal Sub Court, Kozhikode is the petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P1, order releasing 12/60 shares to respondent No.2 from the amount in deposit. Grievance of petitioner is that it is without obtaining any security that the amount has been released to respondent No.2 and if in R.S.A.No.1232 of 2008 of this Court there is an order changing shares of the parties concerned, respondent No.2 may have to refund a portion of the amount he has received and if respondent No.2 has no property for realisation of the amount petitioner and other sharers will find it difficult to realise the excess amount from respondent No.2. In the circumstances, court below should have released the amount to respondent No.2 only on appropriate security. A modification of the order is sought for. 2. It is stated that it is based on the order in R.S.A.No.1232 of 2008 that learned Principal Sub Judge released the amount to respondent No.2. It is also not disputed that the order passed in R.S.A.No.1232 of 2008 did not direct learned Sub Judge to release the amount on security. Hence learned Sub Judge could not have insisted for any security. In such a situation, this Court cannot interfere with the order under challenge. Petitioner can seek his remedy if any in R.S.A.No.1232 of 2008 if he is otherwise entitled to that course. OP(C) No.1070/2010 2 Petition is closed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks