IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).NO. 473 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------- OS.94/2009 OF SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- VARGHESE, S/O.XAVIER, KANAKUNNEL HOUSE, KAVANA KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 661. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH PULIMOOTTIL SRI.K.DILIP SRI.ROVIN RODRIGUES RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. SREE GOKULAM CHIT AND FINANCE CO.(P) LTD., 356, ARCOT ROAD, KODAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI-600 024. 2. ZAKHEER HUSAIN, THAIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA EAST, P.O.THODUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-685 585. 3. IYSHA ZAKHEER, DO. 4. SUDHEER KAREEM, DO. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.473 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant No.4 in O.S. No.94 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Muvattupuzha is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P7, order dated October 12, 2010 on I.A. No.809 of 2010 directing petitioner to produce certificate of valuation from the Tahsildar concerned. Respondent No.1 has filed the suit for money -- more than Rupees Forty three lakhs with interest and costs as per s a chitty transaction it had with respondent Nos.2 to 4 and to which transaction, petitioner was a guarantor. Property – 21 cents belonging to the petitioner was attached as per order on I.A. No.692 of 2009. Petitioner filed Ext.P3, application to substitute the security by offering another property – 56.825 cents belonging to a third person and requested to lift the attachment. To that application respondent No.1 filed Ext.P4, objection stating that substituted property is not acceptable, it is only 56.825 cents and that petitioner can offer Bank Guarantee. Respondent No.1 also filed a separate petition, Ext.P6, to direct petitioner produce Bank Guarantee for the amount due in case he wanted O.P(C) No.473 of 2010 -: 2 :- attachment over the property is to be lifted. By the impugned order learned Sub Judge directed petitioner to produce valuation certificate from the Tahsildar. Learned counsel contends that even in Ext.P4, objection filed by respondent No.1 there is no contention raised that value of the property offered as substituted security is less than value of property attached and considering the delay in obtaining valuation certificate from the Tahsildar, learned Sub Judge ought not have insisted on production of a valuation certificate. 2. I have gone through Ext.P4, counter filed to Ext.P3, application and Ext.P6, application. True, in so many words it is not stated that value of property offered as substituted security is less than value of the property attached. But respondent No.1 has stated that the substituted property is not acceptable as security and has requested learned Sub Judge to direct petitioner produce Bank Guarantee. It is discernible from that conduct of respondent No.1 that according to him the substituted property is not sufficient security for the amount due under the decree. It is in the circumstances that learned Sub Judge has directed petitioner to produce valuation certificate from the Tahsildar. I do O.P(C) No.473 of 2010 -: 3 :- not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sub Judge calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Original Petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv