Thomas T. Eapen vs M.C. Thomas
2021 Latest Caselaw 7425 Ker

RSA 203/2021                             1/3



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      Present:
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR

               Wednesday,the 3rd day of March 2021/12th Phalguna, 1942
                         I.A.No.1/2021 IN RSA No.203/2021

    For information purpose only
AS No.166/2017 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT),
KOTTAYAM
OS No.27/2016 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ETTUMANOOR
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
      THOMAS T. EAPEN,AGED 60 YEARS,
      S/O. LATE EAPEN, THADATHIL HOUSE, VILLOONI P. O., ARPPOKKARA
      VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
      M.C. THOMAS,AGED 68 YEARS
      S/O. CHACKO, RESIDING AT MUKALELVADAKETHIL HOUSE, KANAKKARI
      P.O., KIZHAKKUMBHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE.




      Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased to pass an order staying all further
proceedings pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 08.07.2020 in
AS.No.166/2017 passed by the Additional District Court-II (Special ) Kottayam
and the Judgment and Decree dated 17.11.2016 in OS.No.27/2016 on the file of
the Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor, pending disposal of the above Appeal.
     This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the
affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S.VIJAI
MATHEWS & JOSEPH THEKKEKURUVANAL, Advocate for the petitioner, the
court passed the following:
 RSA 203/2021                        2/3




                            N.ANIL KUMAR, J.
                                 ----------------
                            RSA No.203 of 2021
                                 ----------------
                    Dated this the 3rd day of March 2021


    For information purpose only
                 ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant. This R.S.A is admitted on the following substantial question of law.

i) Whether the judgment of criminal court in Crl.Appeal No.131/2018, which has become final between the parties in a proceeding under Section 138 if the Negotiable Instrument Act is relevant to adjudicate the issue between the same parties in this case;

ii) When the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is quasi criminal in nature, whether the courts below went wrong in considering the preponderance of probabilities involved in the case in accordance with the scheme of the Indian Evidence Act.

iii) Whether Ext.A1 cheque was executed by the appellant. If so, was it supported by consideration.

I.A.No.1/2021

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner/appellant. The operation of the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2020 in A.S.No.166/2017 on the file of the Additional District Court II, Kottayam, which arose from the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2016 in O.S.No.27/2016 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor, stands stayed for a period of four months, on furnishing sufficient security for the decree amount with interest and cost to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned. It is clarified that, if any specific charge is created on the property of the appellant, it is not necessary to furnish security for the decree RSA 203/2021 3/3

amount with interest and cost as ordered herein above.

Issue notice.

Sd/-

uu N.ANILKUMAR JUDGE For information purpose only /true copy/ Sd/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR