Kerala High Court
V.R.Reji vs M/S.Anugraha Engineering on 12 March, 2019
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1940
OP(C).No. 2449 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 51/2016 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR
PETITIONER:
V.R.REJI
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. V.S.RAJAPPAN,
VETTIKATTU KAROTE,
AMBALAMUGAL, ERNAKULAM - 682 301.
BY ADVS.
SRI.A.JAYASANKAR
SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN
SMT.B.MEERA
SRI.MANU GOVIND
SRI.RAHUL SURENDRAN
SRI.S.SABARINADH
SRI.SIVARAM R. MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 M/S.ANUGRAHA ENGINEERING,
MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS, MANNALIL BUILDING,
AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI - 682 303,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI.PETER D'SOUZA
2 M/S. DRIPLEX WATER ENGINEERING LTD.,
PUTHENVEL HOUSE, KARINGACHIRA,
IRUMPANAM P.O.-682302,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3 M/S. ENGINEERING INDIA LTD.,
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD-(BPCL),
KOCHI REFINERY COMPOUND,
AMABALAMUGAL, KOCHI-682302
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
OP(C).No. 2449 of 2018
2
4 M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD-(BPCL)
AMBALAMUGHAL-682302,
REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PREMCHAND M.
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2019, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(C).No. 2449 of 2018
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the plaintiff. The movables belonging to the first respondent herein was attached. Pending the proceedings, the balance court fee became payable. Petitioner filed I.A.No.344/2018 to keep in abeyance of remittance of balance court fee till I.A.No.344/2018 for interim sale of attached property was considered. According to the petitioner, I.A.No.344/2018 was liable to be considered first.
2. The premise on which the contention was set up seems to be that, since the petitioner was unable to pay balance court fee at that point of time, he wanted the property brought under attachment to be sold and sale proceeds deposited in court. The court below rejected I.A.No.344/2018 and granted 7 more days time to pay the court fee by order in I.A.No.518/2018. Both the above applications are under challenge OP(C).No. 2449 of 2018 4 in this proceedings.
3. It seems that, the prayer of the petitioner for granting short time for deposit, if allowed, would have served the purpose. Having considered this, I feel that no purpose will be served by retaining the original petition unendingly.
Accordingly, O.P.(C) is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to remit the balance court fee within 15 days from today. If the amount is not remitted, this benefit will be lost and the court below will be free to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE Pn 13/03 OP(C).No. 2449 of 2018 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO.517/2018 IN O.S.51/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PERUMBAVOOR.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE I.A.NO.518/2018 IN O.S.51/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PERUMBAVOOR.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2018 IN IA NO.517/2018 IN OS 51/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PERUMBAVOOR.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.9.2018 IN I.A.NO.518/2018 IN OS 51/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PERUMBAVOOR.