IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP(C).No. 571 of 2010(O)
1. LIBIN, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.KUNJALIKKATTIL VEETTIL
... Respondent
2. PRASEEDA, D/O.KUNJALIKKATTIL VEETTIL
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :04/11/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
O.P.(C) No.571 of 2010
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.No. 1490 of 2010 of the court of
learned Munsiff, Irinjalakuda. On an alleged breach of contract to marry,
respondents have sued petitioner for recovery of damages and alleging that
petitioner, to delay and avoid the process of court or delay execution of the
decree that may be passed against him is attempting to go abroad, respondents
filed I.A.No.4170 of 2010 to direct petitioner to either deposit Rupees one lakh or
furnish security for the plaint claim and on its failure to arrest and detain him in
civil prison. Petitioner appeared through counsel and filed objection. While
denying the allegation of breach of agreement, he contended that he has no
intention to go abroad. He also denied the allegations against him in Ext.P2,
application. Learned Munsiff has passed Ext.P4, order issuing warrant of arrest
against petitioner to bring him before court and to show cause why he shall not
furnish security for his appearance in court. That order is under challenge.
Learned counsel states that petitioner is prepared to appear before court through
counsel and show cause as directed in Ext.P4, order.
2. The purport of warrant contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 38 of
the Code of Civil Procedure is to bring the defendant before court to answer the
notice as to why he shall not furnish security for his appearance. Now that
OP(C) No.571/2010
2
petitioner has offered to appear before court through counsel and show cause
why he shall not furnish security, I am persuaded to think that petitioner could be
permitted to do so rather than he being arrested and produced before the court.
Resultantly this petition is disposed of in the following lines:
i. Order to issue warrant of arrest against petitioner will stand
in abeyance.
ii. In the meantime, petitioner shall appear in the court below
through counsel and show cause why he shall not furnish security as directed in
Ext.P4, order. He shall do so within a week from this day. In case of failure, order
for issue of warrant of arrest will stand revive.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks