IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 570 of 2008(Y)
1. M/S.RELIABLE WARES PVT.LTD, REP. BY ITS
... Petitioner
2. MR.K.T.BENNY, AGED 51, MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. MRS.ANN BENNY, AGED 49, W/O.K.T.BENNY,
4. MR.K.V.THARU, AGED 74, S/O.K.T.VARGHESE,
Vs
1. SMT.T.GNANALAKSHMI, SOLE PROPRIETORESS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM
For Respondent :SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
R.P. No.570 OF 2008 in WP(C)No.7765/2007
=====================
Dated this the 27th day of June 2008
O R D E R
This review petition is preferred against the judgment of this Court in
WP(C)No.7765 of 2007. The matter had arisen out of an order passed in
I.A.No.1327 of 2006 in O.S.No.620 of 2003. The suit was one for
realisation of the amount. There was an attachment. When the matter was
taken up before this Court, it granted an opportunity to furnish security. The
court below passed an order holding that the property having an extent of
8.9 cents which is offered as security as the value of Rs.26,25,000/- and
held that it is sufficient security. It was challenged before me that the
valuation shown is incorrect and the person who has furnished security
does not have absolute right over the property as well as the flat, but, it is
only having a fractional right. Therefore this Court considered the matter
and held that over 8.90 cents it only an undivided share and therefore the
court below has to apply its mind afresh after permitting both parties to
supply materials and decide the question. It is that order which is sought to
be reviewed. It has to be stated that there is no error apparent on the face of
RP 570/2008 -:2:-
the record. But there is subsequent development according to the learned
counsel for the review petitioner that another property has been attached. It
is a matter which the party has to bring before that court in the light of the
order passed by this Court for fresh consideration regarding the furnishing
of security.
With these observations, I dismiss the review petition.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-