IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2008 / 3RD MAGHA 1929 CRP.No. 609 of 2001(E) I.A.NO.841/2000 IN OS.NO.124/2000 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE MANNARKAD REVN. PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: DEFENDANTS 1 & 2: 1. SANKARA GUPTHAN, S/O.LATE KUNHAN MOOTHAN KOOTHUPARAMBU HOUSE, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.SANKARA GUPTHAN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 3 & 4: PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 3 & 4: 1. KUNHUNNI GUPTAN, S/O.LATE CHAMI MOOTHAN AYYAPPANKULAM HOUSE, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 2. RAJAN, S/O.LATE KUNHAN MOOTHAN, KOOTHUPARAMBU HOUSE, THACHANATTUKARA AMSOM DESOM, MANNARKKAD TALUK. 3. JAYAN, S/O.LATE KUNHAN MOOTHAN, -DO- -DO- R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED TH FOLLOWING: C.M.P.NO.1356/2001 IN C.R.P.NO.609/2001 DISMISSED 23/1/2008 SD/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------------- C.R.P. NO. 609 OF 2001 E -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd January, 2008 O R D E R Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.124 of 2000, on the file of the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate, Mannarkkad, challenge in this Revision the order dated 11.12.2000 in I.A.No.841 of 2000. 2. The suit was filed by the first respondent for injunction. A teak tree standing in the property was cut during the pendency of the suit. There is dispute as to who has cut the tree. Plaintiff filed I.A.No.572 of 2000 to seize the teak wood by appointing an Amin. That application was allowed and the Amin was directed to take into custody the timber and to give its custody to any of the parties, if that party tenders or deposits Rs.40,000/- before the Amin or before Court. The Court also held that if the parties are not willing to take custody of the timber as directed, they are entitled to file an application under Order XXXIX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. None of the parties was prepared to deposit the amount. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.841 of 2000 under Order XXXIX Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for a direction to sell the timber in public auction. The court below by the order impugned allowed the application. C.R.P. NO.609 OF 2001 :: 2 :: 3. The contention raised by the revision petitioners before the court below was that the Amin had not seized the timber and therefore, the application was not maintainable. The court below dealt with this contention and held that it is a highly technical contention. The court below held that the Amin's batta was not deposited as the direction to deposit Rs.40,000/- was not complied with. The court below also noticed that the revision petitioners were also not willing to deposit Rs.40,000/- and take the timber. If no order was passed for the disposal of the timber, there was every likelihood of the same being damaged or destroyed. The court below was perfectly justified in directing sale of the timber in public auction. The order impugned would protect the interest of all the parties to the suit and no prejudice would be caused to any of the parties. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the order impugned in this Revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that they may be afforded a further opportunity to deposit Rs.40,000/- and to avoid public auction of the timber. This request is reasonable. The plaintiff had already made it clear that he was not prepared to deposit the amount and that was why he filed I.A.No.841 of 2000. Therefore, it is only reasonable to allow the revision petitioners to deposit the amount and to avoid an auction sale. But the revision petitioners shall deposit the C.R.P. NO.609 OF 2001 :: 3 :: amount within a period of one month from today. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of Rs.40,000/-within the aforesaid period, the court below shall proceed with the implementation of the order impugned. If the deposit is made, the court below shall direct the Amin to give custody of the timber to the revision petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part with the modification in the order impugned as mentioned above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 609 OF 2001 E O R D E R 23rd January, 2008 -------------------------------------------