Padma Ranjith v. P.B.Venu
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the revision. It ordered the respondent to offer unencumbered immovable property as security within two weeks. Attachment before judgment will be granted if security is not provided.
What did the court decide?
Respondent directed to offer unencumbered immovable property as security within two weeks; attachment before judgment ordered if security not furnished.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/12TH ASWINA 1934
CRP.No. 402 of 2012 ()
OS.175/2012 of SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:
PADMA RANJITH
RESIDING 5A WINDSOR APARTMENTS, KURAVANKONAM KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JEEVA KUMAR P.B., PUSHPAMANGALAM, PUNALUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.A.AHAMMED
SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED
RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
P.B.VENU
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether attachment before judgment should be allowed when the respondent offers immovable property as security.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Padma Ranjith
- respondent
P.B. Venu
Coram
V. Chitambaresh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court