High Court Kerala High Court

T.M.G.Finance & Leasing Pvt.Ltd vs Chandramathiamma on 13 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
T.M.G.Finance & Leasing Pvt.Ltd vs Chandramathiamma on 13 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

FAO.No. 250 of 2009()


1. T.M.G.FINANCE & LEASING PVT.LTD.
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CHANDRAMATHIAMMA,AMBIKA SADANATHIL,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.R.RAMADAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

 Dated :13/11/2009

 O R D E R
                          K. M. JOSEPH &
                 M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      F.A.O.No. 250 of 2009
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Joseph, J.

The appellant challenges the order passed in I.A.No. 259 of

2009 in O.S.No. 41 of 2008. That application was filed to set

aside the ex parte decree. The appellant has also filed an

application for condonation of the delay, which was allowed, on

condition of the appellant depositing 10% of the plaint amount,

which comes to Rs.74,000/- It is the common case that the said

amount has already been deposited and the delay was condoned.

Thereafter, the court below proceeded to take up the present

application, which was dismissed.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant,

Shri.Jacob Murikan and the learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff, Shri. R. Ramdas.

F.A.O.No. 250 of 200

2

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

the order is not sustainable. The learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the suit is of the year 2004 and

renumbered as of the year 2008. He would further submit that the

respondent has deposited Rs.5,50,000/- with the defendant

company and the agreed rate of interest was 20%. He would

submit that in case the court is inclined to set aside the impugned

order, atleast the admitted amount may be directed to be deposited

as a condition.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that

the property belonging to the appellant has been attached and he

has filed an application to set aside the attachment, which is

pending. He has deposited fixed deposit receipt for Rs.7,50,000/-,

which earns interest at the rate of 9.5%.

5. In the circumstances of this case, we feel that it is only

fair that there is a decision on the merits of the matter with

opportunity to the parties.

F.A.O.No. 250 of 200

3

6. Accordingly we allow this appeal. The impugned order is

set aside, on condition that the appellant will deposit Rs.1,51,000/-

before the court below within a period of one month. Upon such

deposit being made as aforesaid, the impugned order shall stand

set aside and the application filed by the appellant shall stand

allowed. If the suit is restored as above, the court below will take

up the suit and dispose of the same on or before 28.2.2010. If the

amount is not deposited, the impugned order will stand. We also

make it clear that if the appellant has already made an application

to lift the attachment, the trial court will take up the same and a

decision will be taken before final decision is taken in the matter

on merits.




                                          (K. M. JOSEPH)
                                                 Judge




                                      (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
tm                                               Judge