IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 CRP.No. 228 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2011 IN IA.49/2011,50/2011,112/2011 IN OS.189/2009 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ THANDUPARAKKAL JALEEL, S/O.MUHAMMED @ BAPPUTTY NALLATHANI P.O., NILAMBUR AMSOM DESOM NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.MADHAVAN UNNI SRI.S.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------------------- KOMBAN MUHAMMED HAJI, S/O.UMMER RAMAKUTH, NILAMBUR AMSOM DESOM NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DT. NILAMBUR P.O., PIN 699329. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- C.R.P.No.228 of 2011 A --------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.189 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Manjeri. The suit was filed for realisation of money on the basis of an agreement executed by the petitioner and the respondent by which the petitioner agreed to sell his property to the respondent. The suit was filed for return of the advance amount paid. The property belonging to the petitioner was attached before judgment. The petitioner applied to lift the attachment. He offered to produce fixed deposit receipt for ` 13 lakhs as the security for the suit amount. That prayer was accepted and the attachment was lifted. Now the petitioner wants to get back that fixed deposit receipt of ` 13 lakhs and he offers security of immovable property belonging to his relative. It is also offered that a security bond would be executed by the owner of that property. CRP 228/2011 2 2. The court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner to substitute the security. After disposal of the application filed by the petitioner, the suit was decreed ex-parte. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an application to set aside the ex-parte decree is pending. The court below noticed in the order that when the suit was posted in the special list for trial, the petitioner was not ready and he was set ex-parte. Thereafter, an ex-parte decree was also passed. The court below was justified in dismissing the application. There is no error of jurisdiction warranting interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl