T VIMALA Vs. SREEDHARAN PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.31 of 2010 in O.S.No.124 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff Magistrate, South Paravur. THE amount claimed in the E.P. is Rs.1,29,516/-. An item of property having an extent of 3 Ares 65 Sq.m. was sought to be sold in execution of the decree.

(2.) THE petitioner filed O.S.No.83 of 2007 Munsiff's Court, Paravur against the respondent in respect of the remaining portion of the property sought to be sold. That suit is pending.

(3.) THE court below passed the order dated 14.1.2011 and granted stay on condition of furnishing security. THE petitioner did not comply with the same. THErefore, the only option for the court below was to dismiss E.A.No.114 of 2010. THE order dated 14.1.2011 was in favour of the petitioner. Of course, the petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order by which a condition was fixed. It cannot be stated that the condition fixed by the court below is illegal and unsustainable. Proviso to Rule 29 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that if the decree is one for payment of money, the court shall, if it grants stay without requiring security, record its reasons for so doing. THE court below directed to furnish security and that was not complied with. THE court was, therefore, justified in dismissing E.A.No.114 of 2010. THErefore, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner in this Original Petition are not sustainable.