IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRP.No. 625 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2009 IN IA 3455/2009 IN OS.731/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------- 1. SKYLINE AIR LINK INDIA PVT.LTD., D7 & D8, 2ND FLOOR, PENTA MENAKA, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ABY GEORGE. 2. ABY GEORGE, DIRECTOR, SKYLINE AIR LINK INDIA PVT.LTD., D7 & D8, 2ND FLOOR, PENTA MENAKA, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. BY ADV. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 3 TO 5: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.A.GEORGE, ATTASSERIL KALLUMKAL HOUSE, VARAYANNUR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. SPENCER ABY GEORGE, DIRECTOR, SKYLINE AIR LINK INDIA PVT.LTD., D7 & D8, 2ND FLOOR, PENTA MENAKA, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. 3. DENNY VARGHESE, ALTERNATE DIRECTOR, SKYLINE AIR LINK INDIA PVT.LTD., D7 & D8, 2ND FLOOR, PENTA MENAKA, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. 4. ZACHARIA MATHEW, ALTERNATE DIRECTOR, SKYLINE AIR LINK INDIA PVT.LTD., D7 & D8, 2ND FLOOR, PENTA MENAKA, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.625 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.731 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Suit was for recovery of money, and the 1st respondent/the plaintiff and 2nd to 4th respondents/defendants 3 to 5. Suit was decreed ex parte. These petitioners (defendants 1 and 2) moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a petition to condone delay. That application was objected to by the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The court below, after hearing both sides, passed the impugned order by which the ex parte decree was ordered to be set aside subject to the condition of furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee for the decreetal amount and also a cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners within a period of two weeks. Condition so imposed for setting aside the ex parte decree, that alone, is challenged in the revision. CRP.625/09 2 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary, and hence, it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they are prepared to furnish as security immovable property which is worth more than the decree amount. It is further submitted that the title deed in relation to two rooms in a commercial building possessed by them in the heart of Kochi city had been produced in the same suit by the 1st respondent advancing a case that the said property had been given as equitable mortgage for financial assistance availed, which is the subject matter of the suit. That property can be furnished as security to satisfy the decree, is the submission of the counsel. Considering the submissions made, I find that in lieu of the bank guarantee ordered if the petitioner furnishes security by way of title deed over immovable property, which has value satisfying the decree granted, that can also to be considered by the court as sufficient security for the suit claim. In case, the title deed of the petitioners in respect of the two rooms in a commercial building had already been produced, and now CRP.625/09 3 under the custody of the court, that also can be considered by the court towards security for the suit claim subject to satisfaction required of other factors like that the property is free from encumbrance, its value etc. Cost ordered by the court as a condition precedent for setting aside the ex parte decree shall be complied with by the petitioners. The order of the court below shall stand modified to the extent indicated above in respect of the security to be furnished. The court below shall accept security even if it relates to immovable property of the petitioners with documents required subject to its value and other liabilities, in lieu of the bank guarantee ordered. The time limit for furnishing security shall also stand extended by a period of two weeks from the date of this order. Revision is accordingly disposed. Handover a copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp