Dismissed

R.Anandakumar v. Raveendran

Kerala HC21 Jan 2011OP(C)/8/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In O.P.(C).No. 8 of 2011, Justice K.T. Sankaran dismissed an original petition challenging an order rejecting a request for an extension of time to produce a bond. The court held that since the High Court had fixed the time limit in a prior appeal judgment, only the High Court could extend it, making the subordinate court's restriction correct.

What did the court decide?

The application for extension of time to produce the bond was rejected.

R.Anandakumar Vs Raveendran — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 8 of 2011(O)

¶6

I.A.NO.2490/2010 IN O.S.NO.523/06 OF SUB COURT, KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

¶9

R.ANANDAKUMAR, S/O. RAMACHANDRA REDDIYAR, 'DHANAMS', KUTCHERRY WARD,KOLLAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI. B.KRISHNA MANI

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

RAVEENDRAN, PANAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM ULIYAKOVIL P.O.-691547.

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶16

-----------------------------------------------------O.P.(C). NO. 8 OF 2011 O

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2011

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner, the defendant in O.S.No.523 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam, filed I.A.No.1316 of 2008 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the exparte decree. The trial court dismissed the application. Challenging that order, the petitioner filed F.A.O.No.17 of 2010, which was allowed by the Division Bench subject to three conditions. The first condition was that the appellant shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the trial court for the plaint claim within three months from the date of the judgment.

¶20

It is stated that conditions 2 and 3 in the judgment in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010 were complied with. The petitioner has also made the necessary application for accepting security. But the security furnished was found to be not proper. The petitioner prayed for time to produce bond. The court below, as per the order dated 12.10.2010 rejected the request on the ground that time for

¶21

O.P.(C) NO.8 OF 2011 O

¶22

:: 2 ::

¶23

production of bond was fixed by the High Court in the judgment in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010 and, therefore, the court below could not extend the time. The order dated 12.10.2010 is under challenge in this Original Petition.

¶24

The court below was right in holding that it could not extend the period for producing the bond. The period was fixed by the High Court in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010. Only the High Court could extend the time. Therefore, the challenge against the order dated 12.10.2010 is unsustainable.

¶25

Accordingly, this Original Petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that dismissal of this Original Petition should not stand in the way of the petitioner seeking appropriate relief in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010. It is made clear that the dismissal of this Original Petition will not affect the right of the petitioner to apply for extension of time in F.A.O.No.17 of 2010.

¶26

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶27

ahz/

R.Anandakumar v. Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Anandakumar v. Raveendran

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

State of Kerala Vs Scariah and Another

Sojan Joseph Vs M/S.Southern Fisheries Corporation

Binu George Vs Baby Hendry and Other

Mrs. Krishna Ben K.Patel & Ors. Vs Natwarlal P. Patel

Krishnan Nair and Another Vs Muhammed Khaneefa

Glory George & Others Vs Kunjamma & Others