IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8552 of 2010(O) ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/03/2010 IN IA.365/2010 IN OS.218/2008 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VIJEESH, VASANTHA VILASOM, CHEMPUMKUZHY, ALIYADU P.O., MUTHAKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADVS. MR.R.KRISHNA RAJ MR.M.NAJEEB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- DR.SASIKUMAR, S/O.BHASKAR, GREEN VILLA, KUMAR PLANTATIONS, HAJIYAR KUZHY, ROSE MALA P.O., ARYANKAVU VIA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- WP(C) No.8552 of 2010-O ------------------------------------- Dated 16th March 2010 Judgment In this Writ Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Court, Kottarakkara in IA No.365/10 in OS No.218/08. 2. The petitioner instituted OS No.218/08 against the respondent, claiming an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- as compensation for the damages sustained by him with reference to an agreement entered into between them. As per the agreement dated 08.04.2007, the respondent gave the petitioner 3,200 rubber trees standing in the plaint schedule property having an extent of 20 acres for slaughter tapping and for cutting and removal of the trees after the tapping. The total consideration for the same was WPC 8552/10 2 fixed as Rs.45 lakhs. It is claimed that a sum of Rs.15 lakhs was paid on the date of agreement itself and the balance amount was agreed to be paid in two equal instalments payable on 08.10.2007 and 09.04.2008. It is unnecessary to go further into the details of the case, except to say that the agreement did not materialise. That resulted in the filing of the suit. Due to the intervention of mediators, the loss sustained by the petitioner was calculated and the dispute was solved, on the respondent paying an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the petitioner. The petitioner was constrained to file the suit when the respondent did not honour even the compromise agreement to pay Rs.8,50,000/- to the petitioner. 3. During the pendency of the suit, when the respondent attempted to cut and remove the trees, the petitioner filed IA No.1632/08 seeking to WPC 8552/10 3 restrain the respondent from cutting and removing the rubber trees from the plaint schedule property. The respondent opposed the said application. However, the Court below ordered status quo. Later, the respondent moved IA No.365/05 seeking to modify the status quo order passed by the Court below and to permit him to cut and remove the rubber trees from the plaint schedule property. The Court below allowed the said application filed by the respondent and permitted him to cut and remove the rubber trees from the plaint schedule property on condition that he should deposit Rs.2 lakhs with the Court. According to the petitioner, there was no justification for the Court to pass such an order and there was no justifiable reason as to why the status quo order should have been modified. WPC 8552/10 4 4. I also heard Mr.T.A.Unnikrishnan appearing for the respondent. He pointed out that the only attempt of the petitioner is to see that the rubber tapping is not done and the respondent has suffered considerable loss in that regard. The learned counsel also pointed out that the respondent is prepared to furnish bank guarantee for the suit amount. 5. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner was not amenable to such a course, as it was pointed out that no injury will be caused to the petitioner since the property is under attachment, he has no other option than to accept the proposal of the respondent that he shall furnish bank guarantee for the suit amount. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent to furnish bank guarantee for the suit amount within one month from WPC 8552/10 5 the date of receipt/production of a copy of this Judgment. It is made clear that only after furnishing the bank guarantee as directed above, the respondent will be free to cut and remove the rubber trees from the plaint schedule property. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 8552/10 6