JUDGMENT

Dated this the 02nd day of November, 2022 Aggrieved by Ext.P13 order passed in I.A.No.8/2022 in O.S.No.157/2019 by the Court of the Munsiff, Karunagappally, the defendant in the suit has filed the original petition. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

2. The facts leading to Ext.P13 order, in a nutshell, are: the respondent has filed the suit against the petitioner, for realisation of an amount of Rs.9,73,349/-. The petitioner has resisted the suit through Ext.P2 written statement. The respondent had attached the properties of the petitioner before judgment as per Ext.P5 order. Ext.P6 is the attachment Kychit. Subsequently, in view of a land acquisition proceeding and on the application made by the petitioner, the order of attachment in respect of 95 sq.metres was lifted. The petitioner filed I.A.No.5/2022, to lift the order of attachment in respect of another 90 sq. metres of land, but the same was rejected by Ext.P8 order. Now, the petitioner had filed I.A.No.8/2022, to lift the order of attachment, in view of his treatment but on him furnishing security by way of fixed deposit for Rs.10 Lakh/-. Ext.P10 medical certificate shows that the petitioner is suffering from Cirrhosis of liver, with a history of Variceal bleeding. He is undergoing treatment at the Holy Cross Hospital, Kottiyam. The application was resisted by the respondent through Ext.P11 written objection. The court below, by the impugned Ext.P13 order, has rejected Ext.P9 application. Ext.P13 is unreasonable and wrong. Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Rajan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Ummul Fida, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The point is whether Ext.P13 order is to be interfered by this Court, in exercise of the supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondent has laid the suit to recover an amount of Rs.9,73,349/- from the petitioner. On the application made by the respondent, the court below issued Ext.P6 attachment notice, on 21.10.2019, directing the petitioner to furnish security for an amount of Rs.8,50,000/- towards the satisfaction of the plaint claim. But, the petitioner failed to furnish security amount and the order of attachment was made absolute. Now, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.8/2022, to substitute the order of attachment of immovable property by accepting cash security because he has to mortgage the property to raise funds for his medical treatment for liver cirrhosis.

6. The court below, on the basis of the statement filed by the counsel for the respondent, has directed the petitioner to furnish security for an amount of Rs.15 lakh/- to lift the order of attachment over the immovable property.

7. Even though I do not find any manifest error in Ext.P13 order, taking into account the petitioner's precarious medical condition and the bonafides showed by him by producing a fixed deposit for an amount of Rs.10 Lakh/-, before the court below, definitely, I am of firm view that some indulgence is to be shown in his favour, who is hanging on to his life, on his little piece of land like a straw of hope.

8. Ext.P6 attachment Kychit issued on

21.10.2019, establishes that the petitioner was asked to furnish security for an amount of Rs.8,50,000/-, which is now three years. Thus, I am satisfied that the amount of Rs.10 Lakh/- furnished by the petitioner is sufficient enough to secure the claim of the property, and to lift the order of attachment over the attachment schedule property.

9. On a conspectus of the very peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and by not treating this case as a precedent, I am inclined to exercise the power of superintendence of this Court as enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and allow the original petition.

In the result, I allow the original petition in the following manner:-

i) Ext.P13 order is modified.

ii) Ext.P9 application is allowed.

iii) The court below shall accept the fixed deposit