The petitioner before this Court suffered a decree for money in a suit filed by the respondent herein for specific performance. The petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court and when he moved this Court, this Court as usual directed him to furnish security for the decree amount. That was in R.F.A No.105/2007 before this Court. The petitioner offered his property as security which was not accepted by the court below. Then the petitioner also offered his wife's property which too was found unacceptable by the court below. That brought the petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No.17191/2008 which was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment. Allowing the same, this Court directed the court below to consider the issue afresh and also directed to ascertain the sufficiency of the security. Unfortunately, even after the lapse of seven years, the matter is still pending consideration before the court below. 2. The decree holder filed E.P.No.124/2007 initially seeking arrest of the petitioner which was later withdrawn. He then filed another petition as E.P.No.312/2010 seeking attachment of the property. Even though the petitioner filed two applications, that are kept pending. While so, the petitioner produced fixed deposit receipt of Rs.18,00,000/- before the execution court as security for the amount which might fall due to the decree holder as on 01.01.2015. The petitioner moved an application to accept the same and he also filed Ext.P9 affidavit in support of furnishing of security to the tune of Rs.18 lakhs with a prayer to lift the attachment. Objection was taken to the same by the respondent and that resulted in the impugned orders.
3. One of the grounds on which the court below refused to accept the security was that the applications were filed before the execution court and not before the court which passed the decree.
4. That ground may not have much significance for the simple reason that it is because of administrative reasons that the work was so distributed that Original Suit fell in one court and E.P in another court. That is not a reason not to accept the security.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent pointed out that this Court had directed the petitioner to furnish sufficient security within a period of one month and that period is over long ago and there was no extension sought for.
6. The above contention is devoid of merit for the simple reason that the petitioner has offered two properties as security and valuation of that properties is yet to be made. The fact that the petitioner had offered two properties as security prior to the expiry of the date fixed by this Court shows that he has complied with the order even though valuation is yet to be completed.
7. The other apprehension expressed by the respondent is that if there are outstanding dues to the Bank, then the Bank has a lien on fixed deposits and the attachment order will take effect only to such lien.
8. It is easy to find out if there are any dues outstanding to the Bank and therefore, the above apprehension has no basis.
9. All that the petitioner needs to do is to obtain a certificate from the Bank that no debt is due from him and also that the Bank will be informed that the fixed deposits shall not be treated as security for any other purpose. Four fixed deposit receipts have been produced each for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for five years and the maturity value is Rs.7,19,599/-.
10. The petitioner points out that he wants to have his properties released so that he can settle the same.
11. There is no reason as to why the court below should not consider sufficiency of fixed deposit receipts as security for the purpose of complying with the order of this Court. As already noticed, valuation of properties offered is still going on and even after the lapse of seven years, it is yet to reach the final stage. It is in that context the production of fixed deposit receipts will have to be viewed. There is no reason as to why the fixed deposit receipts should not be accepted as security as ordered by the court for the time being.
12. The court below was therefore not justified in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner for lifting the attachment. The observation of the court below that no affidavit has been filed by the petitioner herein is also not correct since Ext.P9, which is the affidavit filed by the petitioner, is on record. In the light of the fact that security has been offered in the form of fixed deposit receipts with lien shown in favour of O.S.No.21/2014, there is no reason to discard the same. Merely because this Court had directed the petitioner to furnish security before the court below, it does not mean that the execution court cannot accept the security if found sufficient. As already stated, it is the Sub Court which deals with the matter. Merely because the 1st Additional Sub Court is seized of the matter, there is nothing wrong in the execution court receiving the Fixed Deposit Receipts as security. There is no reason to suspect the security offered by the petitioner subject to the condition that he obtains a certificate from the Bank that no amounts are outstanding from him till date.
For the above reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the petitions for lifting of attachment are allowed and the court below is directed to receive the Fixed Deposits Receipts (Exts.P6 and P7) on file as sufficient security for the decree amount due as on date and the attachment effected on the properties offered as security shall stand lifted. This will not stand in the way of either of the parties having any other rights over the property in accordance with law. The court concerned shall intimate the Sub Registry concerned about the lifting of attachment within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp