IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 267 OF 2006() AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2006 IN IA. 986 /2006 IN OS.109/2006 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: M/S.PAN INDIA NET WORK INFRAVERT PVT.LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY K.P. AJIT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS/CR.PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: 1. ASHARAF KANIAPPA, PUTHUPARAMBIL, AGED 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR GREEN CHANNEL KAVALEM BAZAR, CHENGANASSERY, KERALA-686 101, RESIDING AT AJAS MANZIL, PUZHAVADU, CHENGANASSERY. 2. K.A. JASMIN, W/O.ASHRAFF KANIAPPA RESIDING AT KAVALEM BAZAR, CHANGANASSERY KERALA-686 101, RESIDING AT AJAS MANZIL, PUZHAVADU, CHENGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R1 & R2 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O. NO. 267/2006 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 4231/2006 IN F.A.O. 267/2006 // DISMISSED // SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/-, T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. 23.5.2008. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 267 OF 2006. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order lifting the attachment granted. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit itself is filed by the Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff Company for realisation of Rs. 12,47,852/- from the defendants who are husband and wife respectively. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant who is the first respondent herein had executed an agreement with the company to function as retail agent for the sale of computerized net work tickets and on deposit of Rs. 3,50,000/- the first respondent herein was supplied by the company with lottery terminal equipment and the communication system equipment. But subsequently he failed to discharge his obligations and defaulted in paying the net amount to the company. It is also stated that the first defendant, though issued a cheque, it was dishonoured and eventually he was convicted by the criminal court. Along with the suit, an application for attachment of two items of property-one belonging to the first defendant and F.A.O. 267/2006 :2: the other belonging to the second defendant, was also filed. Originally, the court below granted an attachment as prayed for in respect of both items of properties. Subsequently, the attachment was lifted in respect of both the items of properties against which the present appeal is filed. 2. Undisputably, the first item belongs to the second defendant - wife. Though no relief is sought for as against the second defendant, the contention to implead the second defendant is that the first item of the property was purchased utilising the money belonging to the first defendant. As at present no materials are placed on record to prima facie show that the requisite funds for purchase of the first item came from the first defendant husband. However, since the suit is pending it is still open to the plaintiff to adduce sufficient evidence in this regard. But we only point out that at this stage, in the absence of any prima facie proof regarding that contention, there is no justification in attaching item No.1 property belonging to the wife. Therefore, lifting of attachment regarding item No.1 is sustained. 3. Item No.2 property admittedly belongs to the first defendant. Prima facie case is also shown. No counter is filed by the first defendant objecting to the attachment. If so, the objection of the wife as against attachment of item No.1 could not have persuaded the court to vacate the earlier order of attachment passed. Admittedly, the second defendant has F.A.O. 267/2006 :3: no case that item No.2 belongs to her. If so, the only person competent to raise an objection in respect of item No.2 is the first defendant and he having not raised any such objection, there was no reason for the court below at this stage to lift the attachment passed in that regard. 4. In such circumstances, the order passed by the court below is modified and the order lifting the attachment of item No.2 is set aside. The order lifting the attachment of item No.1 is upheld. We make it clear that whatever observations made by us are only for the disposal of the interlocutory application and the court below will dispose of the suit untrammeled by any such observations. The F.A.O. is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-