AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The first defendant in O.S.No.29 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala, challenges Ext.P5 impugned order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the court below allowing Ext.P3 I.A.No.381/2019 filed by the first respondent/plaintiff.
The suit was filed for realisation of money based on a dishonoured cheque. Apprehending that the defendants were taking hasty steps for disposing of their properties in India and leaving the country, plaintiffs filed an interlocutory application for an order calling upon the defendants to file an affidavit stating the particulars of assets of each defendants. That application was opposed before the court below. Overruling the objections raised, the application was allowed by the impugned order.
One of the challenges raised before the court below was that an application filed under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of CPC is not maintainable on trial side. This contention was met by the plaintiffs relying on a decision reported in State Bank of India v. M.K.Raveendran (2009(4) KLT 683). In that decision, this Court took the view that the power available under Order XXI Rule 41(2) of CPC could be invoked by a court sitting on trial side as well.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides in this original petition, I find my way difficult to interfere with the impugned order. I am of considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. Even on factual grounds as well, the view taken by the court below is perfectly sound. It is only just and fair that the defendants, who were alleged to be taking steps for leaving the country, are called upon to furnish details of their assets in the form of an affidavit.
In the result, this original petition fails and it is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications are closed.