The High Court allowed the appellants' appeal challenging a sub court order that imposed a condition requiring a deposit of ₹3,00,000 to set aside an ex parte decree, ruling such a condition illegal when assets were already attached.
The order directing deposit of ₹3,00,000 was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/25TH POUSHA, 1937
FAO.No. 203 of 2015 ()
AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA NO.1399/2013 IN OS NO.294/2011 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS:
BY ADVS.SRI.T.JAYAKRISHNAN
SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF:
THE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
PALLIPPURAM, PALLIPPURAM P.O, CHERTHALA 688 541.
BY ADV. SRI.BENOY K.KADAVAN BY ADV. SRI.GOUTAM SURESH TAMPI
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
F.A.O.No.203 of 2015
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2016
JUDGMENT
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.294 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Cherthala, challenging the order passed by the said court in I.A.No.1399 of 2013, which was filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “CPC”) seeking to set aside the exparte decree dated 04.03.2013.
It is seen that by the impugned order though the application in question was allowed, the court below has imposed a condition requiring the appellants to deposit 3,00,000/-, within two weeks. Since the suit itself was filed for realisation of 3,12,000/- together with interest and as the property of the appellants is already under attachment, according to us, it was illegal for the court to impose such an onerous condition for allowing
2
FAO No.203/2015
an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. Therefore, this appeal is disposed of setting aside the order passed by the Sub Court, Cherthala in I.A.No.1399 of 2013 in O.S.No.294 of 2011 to the extent it directs deposit
of `3,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the imposition of an onerous monetary deposit condition for setting aside an ex parte decree was illegal when the suit property was already under attachment.
Whether the appeal challenging the condition of depositing ₹3,00,000/- should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K.ANILKUMAR
B.EENA R. NAIR
THE INVESTMENT CORPORATION
ANTONY DOMINIC
A.HARIPRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
