Allowed

Kumaran v. Jayachandran

Kerala HC2 Jun 2008WP(C)/16306/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Writ Bench at Ernakulam, quashed a vacation court order that directed issue of attachment for insufficient security due to its failure to state reasons. The court directed the Sub Judge to pass an appropriate order expeditiously, retaining the attachment pending compliance. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 order (Issue attachment) quashed; Sub Judge directed to pass appropriate order within three weeks; attachment ordered to continue.

Kumaran Vs Jayachandran — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 16306 of 2008(N)

¶6

-------------------------OS.701/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR ....................

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

KUMARAN AGED 70, S/O. MANAKALTH SANKARAN, CHOORAKATUKARA, DESOM, PUZHAKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

JAYANCHANDRAN, AGED 27, S/O.PANDIYATH VENU, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶17

===========================

¶18

W.P.(C) NO.16306 OF 2008 ===========================

¶19

Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.701/2008 on

¶22

the file of Sub Court, Thrissur. That suit was instituted by the respondent before District Court, Thrissur during vacation. Petitioner had lodged a caveat earlier. Hence in Ext.P2 application filed under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of Code of Civil Procedure (I.A.1267/2008)notice was served on the petitioner. District Court, being the vacation court, directed petitioner to furnish security. Petitioner furnished security. Under Ext.P10

¶23

learned District Judge passed the following order:-

¶24

“ Security furnished found insufficient.

¶25

Issue attachment.”

¶26

That order is challenged in this petition filed

¶27

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.

¶29

W.P.(C) 16306/2008

¶30

¶31

Ext.P10 order does not show how or whythe

¶32

security furnished is insufficient. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the property furnished as security is worth Rs.10 lakhs and the plaint claim is only less than Rs.6 lakhs and the reasons for holding as insufficient are not stated in Ext.P10 order. Learned counsel also argued that the promissory note based on which the suit was instituted is an unstamped fabricated document and it cannot be relied on. These are

¶33

matters which are to be considered by the trial court.

¶34

Ext.P10 order is not a speaking order at

¶35

all. The order does not disclose for what reason

¶36

the security furnished is found insufficient.

¶37

Hence Ext.P10 order is quashed. Sub Judge,

¶38

Thrissur is directed to pass appropriate order in

¶39

I.A.1267/2008 in accordance with law as

¶40

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶41

this judgment. It is made clear that there will be

¶42

W.P.(C) 16306/2008 3

¶43

an order of attachment till the learned Sub Judge pass appropriate order in accordance with law in the application.

¶44

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶46

tpl/-

¶47

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶48

--------------------W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

SEPTEMBER,2006

Kumaran v. Jayachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumaran v. Jayachandran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.E.B Vs Kalyani (Dead)

Kochu Paru Vs Marankulangara Devaswom

Geemon Vs T.P.Prabhakara Menon

Jimmy Joseph Vs Mary Dominic

Janco Dipped Products (P) Ltd. Vs Development Commissioner

Sunil Alex Vs Santha