IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34208 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.148/2005 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINU JOSEPH,S/O.JOHN,VAKKEDATH(H) UDUMBANNOOR,THODUPUZHA, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PIONEER CAPITAL PTV.LTD. OPPOSITE HEAD POST OFFICE,THODUPUZHA,IN THE LOWER COURT RECORDS). BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DR.NIRMALA KURIAN,D/O.KURIAN, PERUMEDATHU HOUSE,RANDAR KARA,MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR,PENINSULAR CAPITAL MARKET LTD 3RD FLOOR,D.T.REDDIAR BUILDING, VEEKSHANAM ROAD,ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ FOR R2 SMT.K.N.RAJANI FOR R2 SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. FOR R2 SMT.ANILA PETER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.34208/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 14.7.2009 IN C.M.A.NO.55/08 IN THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT, THODUPUZHA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.34208 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T An ex parte decree passed in a suit for money was sought to be set aside by filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit was filed against two companies and an ex parte decree was passed only against the 2nd defendant company alone exonerating the 1st defendant company. Present petitioner representing himself to be a Managing Director of the 2nd defendant company moved the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. That application after enquiry was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. In appeal, the learned District Judge allowed the application subject to the condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards part of the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff. Writ petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness of the judgment so rendered by the learned District Judge to the WPC.34208/09 2 extent of directing deposit of a part of the decree amount as indicated above. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the condition imposed by the court below for depositing Rs.15,000/-, a part of the amount decreed in the suit, which has been imposed as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte order by the learned District Judge may be vacated. After hearing the counsel at length and perusing Ext.P1 order, I find no interference with the judgment is called for. The decree is passed against a company. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he had been wrongly served notice as the Managing Director of the company and that he has no connection with the company. That of course is a matter to be agitated before the court, for which, needless to point out, the evidence has to be tendered to enter a decision. So far as the request made for vacating the order imposed by the court directing deposit of Rs.15,000/- as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte decree, I find no impropriety or WPC.34208/09 3 illegality in such direction issued by the court below. However, there will be a direction that the amount, if deposited, shall be released subject to the decision of the suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court for extending the time for deposit. Considering the submissions made, it is ordered that if the deposit is made before the court within one month from the date of this judgment, it shall be treated as having been made within time. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp