The security bond shall make sure that adequate provision for pathway along the property is owned for ingress to and egress from the property offered as security, is incorporated in the security bond. This Honorable judgement was passed by High Court of Kerala in the case of Jayaprakash v. Rajalakshmi [OP(C). No. 265 OF 2021] by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.V Anil Kumar.
Ext.P6 order dismissing I.A.No.4/2020 passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, is challenged by the aggrieved defendant. Ext.P2 security bond was furnished by the petitioner seeking to vacate conditional order of attachment before judgment passed by the court. The reason pointed out by the court below for declining to accept security is that the property offered is situated in an interior part far away from public road. The court below apprehends that in the event of the said property being accepted as sufficient security, it may deprive of the holder’s right to access the property.
The court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent and the attention were drawn to Ext.P2 security bond and it was pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff that sufficient provision for use of pathway to the property was not been provided therein. It was submitted that in the absence of proper access being provided from public road through the remaining property of the petitioner, Ext.P2 property may not be accepted. The learned counsel for the respondent further submits that an application for issue of commission was filed to ascertain the lie, nature etc. of Ext.P2 property which was a part of the entire property owned and possessed by the petitioner. No orders were yet passed on the application.
After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides, the court was of the view that, “unless the court below ensures that there is unquestionable right of access attached to the property offered, the same cannot be accepted as sufficient security in satisfaction of the suit claim therefore, the matter requires reconsideration and fresh orders are liable to be passed. In the result, this original petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 12.01.2021.”
The court disposed of the case stating that, “the court shall reconsider I.A.No.4/2020, after hearing the parties in accordance with law and pass necessary orders. The court below may also consider I.A.No.5/2020 filed by the respondent for issue of commission. It is made clear that the court below before accepting the security shall make sure that adequate provision for pathway along the property owned by the petitioner for ingress to and egress from the property offered as security, is incorporated in the security bond. A sketch or a fair plan drawn to scales and signed by the parties may also be ordered to be attached to the bond.”
