C.K.Muhammed Basheer vs Moonnukundanchalil Nisar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2287 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942

                     OP(C).No.1791 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.387/2019 IN OS 41/2014 OF SUB COURT,
                            KOYILANDY

                         -------------


PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFANDANT:

             C.K.MUHAMMED BASHEER
             AGED 58 YEARS
             S/O. MOIDU, BUSINESS, AL-KAIMA,
             THRIKOOTTOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
             SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:

      1      MOONNUKUNDANCHALIL NISAR
             AGED 57 YEARS,
             S/O. BAVA,ABROAD, SURUMA, PAYYOLI VILLAGE, MELADY
             AMSOM P.O PAYYOLI, KOYILANDI TALUK, BY POWER OF
             ATTORNEY HOLDER M.C MOIDEEN, S/O BAVA, AGED 61
             YEARS, BUSINESS, MOONNUKUNDANCHALIL HOUSE, PAYYOLI
             VILLAGE, MELADY DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK 673 522

      2      P.K IBRAHIM HAJI
             AGED 50 YEARS,
             S/O. MOIDEEN, BUSINESS, PANAKKAMKANDY HOUSE,
             PALAERY AMSOM, DESOM, KOYILANDY 673 508

             R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
             R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.SATHYA SREEPRIYA

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                      SATHISH NINAN, J.
            ==================
                 O. P. (C) No.1791 of 2020
            ==================
           Dated this the 20th day of January, 2021

                                JUDGMENT

The ex parte money decree against the

petitioner-defendant was set aside, on the court being satisfied about the explanation offered for

non-appearance. The medical certificate produced by

the petitioner was taken into consideration by the

court. The court proceeded to allow the

application, but on condition that the entire

decree amount shall be deposited within one month.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the condition

imposed.

2. After having found that the explanation

offered by the petitioner is acceptable, it was not

necessary to direct deposit of the entire decree

amount as a condition for setting aside the ex

parte decree. At any rate, it was not necessary to

have imposed such an onerous condition. It would be

sufficient if the plaint claim is adequately

secured.

O. P. (C) No.1791 of 2020

3. Accordingly, the condition for deposit of

the decree amount as ordered by the trial court in

IA 387/2019 will stand set aside. The petitioner

shall furnish security for the plaint claim,

including interest and costs, to the satisfaction

of the trial court, within a period of one month.

The condition imposed will stand so modified.

Original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1791 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 18-11-2014, IN O.S NO. 41/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 30-07-2015

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S IA 387/2019 DATED 2-08-2019

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENTS COUNTER STATEMENT, DATED 20-09-2019

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6-10-2020 IN IA NO. 387/2019

---------------