IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 OP(C).No. 156 of 2010(O) ------------------------ A.S.NO.187/2009 OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA OS.594/2005 of II ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ T.SARALA, AGED 40, W/O.STEPHONSON, THANNININNA NADUTHATTIL PUTHEN VEEDU, ETTUKUTTY, THIRUPURAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD J.DEV SRI.PRAMOD J.DEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOSEPH.S., AGED 58, CHEENIVILA KUTTIKKATTU PUTHEN VEEDU, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695121. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.156 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT Defendant in O.S.No.594 of 2004 of the court of learned Additional Munsiff-II, Neyyattinkara and appellant in A.S.No.187 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara is the petitioner before me. She suffered a decree for payment of money and that decree is under challenge in A.S.No.187 of 2009. Learned Sub Judge as per Ext.P1, order has granted stay on condition of furnishing security for the amount due under the decree to the satisfaction of learned Munsiff within the time stipulated therein. That order was challenged in this Court in W.P.(C) No.20995 of 2010 on the ground that since an item of property belonging to the petitioner has already been attached it is not necessary to furnish further security under Order XLI Rule 5(3)(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). This Court was not inclined to accept that contention. At that stage petitioner expressed willingness to offer the very same property as security. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition stating that it is open to the petitioner to do so if she is otherwise entitled and as the trial court may permit. Petitioner was also granted time to comply with the order of learned Sub Judge till 16.07.2010. Petitioner then filed Ext.P3, application before the learned Additional Munsiff. In the affidavit in support of the application it is stated that property attached may be treated as security. But in the application what is stated is that the amount attached may be treated as security . Learned OP(C) No.156/2010 2 counsel states that it is a mistake and what is attached is property of the petitioner. I accept the clarification made by the learned counsel. Grievance is that Ext.P3, application has not been considered by the learned Additional Munsiff. There is no reason why property belonging to petitioner and which is placed under conditional attachment shall not be accepted as security but a mere statement by petitioner that property attached may be taken as security is not sufficient . She has to be executed a security bond as provided under law though the very same property (attached) is offered as security. I permit petitioner to move appropriate application in that behalf before learned Additional Munsiff. Petitioner is granted time to comply with the order to furnish security till 15.10.2010. The execution proceedings shall remain in abeyance till 15.10.2010. Resultantly this petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks