Partly allowed

M.Abdul Rahim v. J. Vijay Kumar

Kerala HC6 Jan 2016OP(C)/1274/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an original petition challenging a condition imposed to lift an ex parte decree. The Court held that requiring a deposit of 50% of the decree amount under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC was harsh and lifted the condition.

What did the court decide?

The condition to deposit half of the decree amount as security was lifted from the order allowing the prayer to set aside the ex parte decree.

M.Abdul Rahim Vs J. Vijay Kumar — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

OP(C).No. 1274 of 2015 (O)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS 100/2010 of SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

---------------

¶9

M.ABDUL RAHIM AGED 68 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED UMMER JABBAR, RESIDING AT THOPPIL VEEDU PERUMATHURA, SARKARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

J. VIJAY KUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI RESIDING AT THIRUVONAMAYANIVILA, ARASUPARAMBU MURI NEDUMANGADU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.695 052.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.E.G.GORDEN BY ADV. SRI.S.K.KRISHNAKUMAR BY ADV. SRI.T.N.SIVADASAN

¶14

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(C).No. 1274 of 2015 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXT.P-1:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.100/2010 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD
EXT.P-2:	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.318/2010 IN O.S.NO.100/2010 FOR ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGEMENT DATED 17.3.2010
EXT.P-3:	TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.228/2015 IN O.S.NO.100/2010 FOR SET ASIDING EXPARTE ORDER.
EXT.P-4:	TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY PETITION, I.A.NO.229/2015 IN O.S.100/2010
EXT.P-5:	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.100/2010
EXT.P-6:	TRUE COPY OF THE E.P NO.11/2013 IN O.S.NO.100/2010 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL DATED 4.3.2013
EXT.P-7:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN I.A.NO.228/2015 AND I.A.NO.229/2015 IN O.S.NO.100/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 13.3.2015
EXT.P-8:	TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.378/2015 IN O.S.NO.100/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 20.3.2015.
EXT.P-9:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.378/2015 IN O.S.NO.100/2010 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 25.3.2015

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

¶20

-------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

vdv

============================ Dated this the 6^th day of January, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Petitioner is the defendant in O.S No.100/2010 of Sub Court, Nedumangad. An exparte decree was passed. He filed an application to set aside the decree along with an application to condone the delay in filing it. They have been allowed by Ext.P7 order. But, the court has imposed a condition that he shall pay `2,000/- as cost and deposit half of the decree amount as security within one week. An application to review the order has been dismissed. This is challenged.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

It is not in dispute that property of the petitioner is

¶30

under attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is too harsh for the court to ask him to deposit 50% of the decree amount. The condition is only to be lifted.

¶31

In the result, this original petition is disposed of allowing the prayer of the petitioner to lift the condition to deposit half of the decree amount.

¶32

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW , JUDGE

¶33

vdv

M.Abdul Rahim v. J. Vijay Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Abdul Rahim v. J. Vijay Kumar

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

Sajitha Vs Leela

Joseph Vs Gopalakrishnan

Bindu Vs Kamaladevi Kunjamma

C.K.Rajalakshmi Vs M.K.Satheeshan

Shanis T.M Vs State of Kerala

Sobhana Vs Velappan