Kerala High Court
Kollochi Abdul Raheem vs Saneesh on 5 March, 2021
RSA 239/2016 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR
Friday,the 5th day of March 2021/14th Phalguna, 1942
IA.NO.1/2021 IN RSA No.239/2016 (C)
For information purpose only
AS No.18/2015 of the SUB COURT, VADAKARA
OS No.111/2014 of the MUNSIFF COURT, VADAKARA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
KOLLOCHI ABDUL RAHEEM
S/O.KUNHAMMAD, AGED 47 YEARS, BUSINESS, PUDUPPANAM AMSOM
DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER, MUHAMMAD RAFEEK, S/O.MOIDU, AGED 34
YEARS, RESIDING AT THAMAM HOUSE, MEMUNDA AMSOM, KEEZHAL
DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SANEESH,
S/O.SIVADASAN,AGED 39 YEARS, CONTRACTOR,
RESIDING AT NEROTH THAZHA KUNIYIL HOUSE, CHORODE AMSOM
AND ERAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 106.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith the High Court be pleased to enlarge and extend that the period of 15
days granted to furnish security in the order dated 18.07.2016 in
IA.No.1152/2016 in the above RSA till 01.04.2021.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS, Advocate for the petitioner and of M/S.K.K.ANIL RAJ
& U.K.DEVIDAS, (Caveators) for the Respondent, the court passed the
following:
N. ANIL KUMAR, J.
-------------------------------------------
R.S.A.No.239 of 2016
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
I.A.No.1 of 2021
In I.A.No.1152/2016, this Court passed an interim
stay of execution of the decree on condition that the
petitioner shall furnish security for the money portion of
the decree within a period of fifteen days.
2. The present application is filed seeking to
enlarge and extend the period of fifteen days granted to
furnish security as per order dated 18.07.2016. It is
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application
that the appellant was under the mistaken impression
that since there was already an attachment before
judgment in the suit, there would be no further need to
furnish security. It is further stated that after some time,
the appellant fell out with the counsel who was
appearing for him at that point of time owing to
RSA No. 239 of 2016
..2..
,
difference of opinion and engaged the services of another
For information purpose only
counsel. In the affidavit in support of the application, it is
further averred that only when the trial court at its last
posting passed an order, the appellant came to know that
a conditional order passed by this Court has not been
complied with till date. Hence, the present application is
filed to enlarge and extend the 15 days granted to furnish
security.
3. In this case, the respondent filed a caveat and
entered appearance. However, when the petition has
come up for hearing, there is no representation for the
respondent.
4. Having taken into consideration the entire facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view
that in case the petitioner/appellant furnishes security for
the money portion of the decree within a period of seven
days from the date of this order to the satisfaction of the
RSA No. 239 of 2016
..3..
,
Executing Court, the interim order passed in I.A.1152 of
For information purpose only
2016 shall stand revived and extended for a period of
seven days from today.
The I.A. is disposed of in the above terms.
Post after a month.
Sd/-
N. ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE
kkj
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
