IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2011 / 22ND POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 120 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- OS.NO.132/2010 OF SUB COURT, KOCHI ... PETITIONER:PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- MS. ADELINE D'MONTE,W/O.LATE TERENCE D'MONTE,AGED 73 YEARS,RESIDING AT 1/396,PRINCESS STREET, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTICT,KOCHI 682 001. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.ASIF RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------ MR.KENNETH MARK FERNANDEZ,S/O.MR.CARLTON FERNANDEZ, AGED 36 YEARS,RESIDING AT XXVIII/1790, MULLAVALAPPU,AMARAVATHY, FORT KOCHI 682 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRAN PUZHANKARA THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.120 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.132 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kochi against the respondent for realisation of a sum of Rs.59,34,779/-. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1015 of 2010, 1016 of 2010 and 1017 of 2010. There is dispute regarding the correctness of the I.A.Nos. However, there is no dispute that three interlocutory applications were filed by the plaintiff as I.A.Nos. 1015 of 2010, 1016 of 2010 and 1017 of 2010. These I.As (need not necessarily be respectively) are for impounding the Indian Passport of the respondent, for temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the immovable property scheduled to the petition and for attachment before judgment of the amounts retained by the garnishees. O.P(C).No.120 OF 2011 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid three Interlocutory Applications were not heard and disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge. The prayer made by the petitioner in this Original Petition is to issue a direction to the court below to issue notice to the garnishees and also to hear and dispose of the aforesaid three applications. The respondent appears through counsel. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the applications were not disposed of. The counsel stated that the counter affidavits were filed in the aforesaid three applications and that the respondent is ready to argue the applications before the court below. 3. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the Original Petition is disposed of directing the learned Subordinate Judge to consider and pass orders on I.A.Nos. 1015 of 2010, 1016 of 2010 and 1017 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that I have not O.P(C).No.120 OF 2011 3 expressed any opinion on the merits of the applications. The applications shall be dealt with by the court below in accordance with law. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms