Kerala High Court
Ramesh vs Sreekanth Enterprises on 9 August, 2023
1
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 910 OF 2023
EA NO.51/2023 IN EP NO.77/2021 IN OS 96/2018 OF MUNSIFF COURT,
OTTAPPALAM
PETITIONER/S:
RAMESH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O BALAGUPTHAN,RESIDING AT ANARIKOTTIL HOUSE,
KADAMPAZHIPURAM AMSOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT,, PIN - 678633
BY ADVS.
T.C.SURESH MENON
B.DEEPAK
RESPONDENT/S:
SREEKANTH ENTERPRISES
KADAMPAZHIPURAM AMSOM, DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KUTTY
SANKARAGUPTHAN, S/O APPU GUPTHAN, 75 YEARS, RESIDING
AT VALAPPILTHODI HOUSE, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, OTTAPALAM
TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,, PIN - 678633
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
C.S DIAS,J.
---------------------------
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
-----------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of August, 2023 .
JUDGMENT
The original petition is filed challenging Ext P7
order passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Ottapalam, in
EA No.51/2023 in EP No.77/2021 in OS 96/2018.
2. The brief relevant facts for the determination of
the original petition are;
(i) The petitioner is the judgment-debtor in EP
No.77/2021, which has been filed by the respondent to
execute the decree that has been passed in OS
No.96/2018.
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
(ii) The petitioner has filed AS No.30/2022 before
the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam,
challenging Ext P1 decree. The Lower Appellate Court
has stayed the operation of the decree subject to the
condition that the petitioner furnishes security to the
satisfaction of the Execution Court.
(iii) The petitioner filed EA No.51/2023 (Ext P4) to
accept his salary certificate as sufficient security. The
same was objected to by the respondent through Ext P6
written objection.
(iv) The court below, by the impugned Ext P7 order,
has rejected Ext P4. Ext P7 is patently wrong. Hence,
the original petition.
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
3. Heard; Sri.T.C Suresh Menon, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner on admission.
4. Indisputably, the petitioner has preferred AS
No.30/2022 before the Lower Appellate Court
challenging the decree passed in OS No.96/2018. The
petitioner's case is that the Lower Appellate Court has
stayed the operation of the decree subject to the condition
that the petitioner furnishes security to the satisfaction of
the Execution Court.
5. The petitioner, without producing any security,
offered his salary certificate as security. The court below,
after appreciating the rival pleadings in Exts P4 and P6
found that the security furnished by the petitioner was
insufficient to stay the decree. I do not find any error in
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
Ext P7 order passed by the court below warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of the plenary
powers of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The original petition is meritless
and is hence dismissed.
SD/-
sks/9.8.2023 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
OP(C) No.910 of 2023
APPENDIX OF OP(C) 910/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO.96/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT,
OTTAPALAM, DATED 22.12.2020.
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF E.P. NO.77/2021 IN O.S.
NO.96/18 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S
COURT, OTTAPALAM, DATED 22.3.2021.
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO E.P. NO.77/2021, DATED
5.1.2022.
Exhibit-P4 TRUE COPY OF E.A. NO.51/2023 IN
E.P.NO.77/21 IN O.S.NO.96/2018 ON THE FILE
OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM, DATED
JANUARY, 2023.
Exhibit-P5 TRUE COPY OF SALARY CERTIFICATE AND THE
DEDUCTIONS PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 BY
THE PETITIONER, DATED 19.12.2022.
Exhibit-P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO EXT.P4, DATED 29.1.2023.
Exhibit-P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E.A. NO.51/2023
IN E.P. NO.77/2021 IN O.S. NO.96/2018 ON
THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM,
DATED 24.2.2023.
