SHINE AUGUSTINE Vs. BERNAD MANUEL @ ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the original petition are the judgment-debtors in EP 27/2015 on the files of the Sub Court, Thodupuzha. The above EP arose out of the decree and judgment in O.S.132/2012 of the above court. The suit was one for recovery of damages and the same was decreed, as prayed for. The said decree and judgment were challenged before this Court.

(2.) This Court stayed the execution of the decree, on condition of the petitioners furnishing security and the time limit for furnishing security was subsequently extended by one month from 9.9.2016. According to the petitioners, though bond was produced within the extended time on 4.10.2016, they could not produce the encumbrance certificate within the said time and the encumbrance certificate was produced after the extended time. The court below rejected the bond, by Ext.P5 order, on the ground that the market value of the property is not stated in the bond and the time limit fixed by this Court was over. The legality and correctness of this order is challenged in this original petition.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.