Kerala High Court
Hema Ranjith vs Pradeep Alex on 15 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942
OP(C).No.1512 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2020 IN O.S. NO.136/2014 OF
MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR
PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
HEMA RANJITH,
AGED 37 YEARS,
W/O. RANJITH, HAREESH BHAVAN, MATHARA MURI,
KARAVALUR VILLAGE, 691 333.
BY ADVS.SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH
SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS
SRI.R.MAHESH MENON
SRI.DEAGO JOHN K
SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V.
RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
PRADEEP ALEX,
S/O. ALEXANDER FRANCIS,
VAYALUNGAL HOUSE, BHARANICAVU WARD,
PUNALUR MURI,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK, 691 305.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.PREMCHAND
SMT.SURYA MOHAN P.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.1512/2020
-:2:-
Dated this the 15th day of January,2021
J U D G M E N T
Defendant in O.S.No.136/2014 before Munsiff
Court, Punalur, challenges Ext.P4 order dated
30.06.2020 passed by the court in I.A.No.954/2016.
2. I heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as the respondent.
3. The question relates to the sufficiency
of security furnished by the petitioner before the
court below pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated
14.01.2020 passed by this Court in
C.R.P.No.616/2019.
4. The defendant sought to set aside ex
parte decree passed against her. They were orders
passed by courts below which finally came to be
challenged in Ext.P1 proceeding. While setting
aside the ex parte decree, this Court directed the
petitioner herein to furnish sufficient security
as to satisfy the amount payable under the decree.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that
sufficient security was furnished which the court
below refused to accept for untenable reasons.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel
O.P.(C)No.1512/2020
for the respondent submits that the security
furnished was not sufficient to satisfy the amount
payable under the decree.
7. On going through the impugned order, I
find that the question as to sufficiency could
have been easily solved, had the court below
directed the petitioner to produce necessary
documents evidencing the fair value of land
estimated under the provisions of the Kerala Stamp
Act. I hope that once the fair value of land is
established, the whole issue between parties could
be properly decided. If the court below finds that
the fair valuation by itself may not help, it may
also take to proper recourse available under law
in the matter.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent
submits that the petitioner is adopting all
dilatory tactics and therefore, necessary
direction may be given to the court below to
expedite the matter.
In the result, the original petition is
disposed of with a direction to the court below to
decide the issue as to sufficiency of security
based on the fair value of land for which
O.P.(C)No.1512/2020
opportunity may be given to the petitioner. It is
directed that the matter shall be decided within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this judgment in accordance with
the directions already made.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR,JUDGE
DST //True copy/
P.A.To Judge
O.P.(C)No.1512/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
OF 2019 DATED 14.01.2020 OF THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SURELY BOND DATED
14.02.2020 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT
PUNALUR IN O.S. 136 OF 2014.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED NIL
FIELD IN O.S. 136 OF 2014 BEFORE THE
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2020
IN I.A. NO. 954 OF 2016 IN O.S. NO.
136/2014 DATED 30.06.2020 OF THE
HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT PUNALUR.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOTS OF THE
CASE POSTING AS SHOWN IN E COURTS
SERVICES.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29.7.2019 IN OP(C)NO.1833/2019
EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
07.09.2015
EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE HAND WRITTEN COPY OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IN EP NO-71/2017 BEFORE
THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR.
