IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6730 of 2008(A) ------------------------- OS.24/2008 of SUB COURT, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- K.C.PETER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHACKO, RESIDING AT KOSAPALLY HOUSE, KRISHNA QUARTERS, KANHANGAD SOUTH, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. SATHISH SHENOY, S/O.RAMACHANDRA SHENOY, BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT 'SREE KARTHIYANI' MANALIL, KIZHAKKUMKARA, AJANUR VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. VINAYAKA SHENOY, S/O.RAMACHANDRA SHENOY, BUSINESSMAN, RESIDING AT 'SREE KARTHIYANI' MANALIL, KIZHAKKUMKARA, AJANUR VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 6730 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of February, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is preferred against the order whereby the Court below only ordered notice but did not pass any conditional order of attachment as contemplated under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. Sitting in Article 227 jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere with the application of mind by the Court below at the initial stage of ordering a notice. But at the same time it has to be remembered that attachment applications are filed because of the apprehension that the defendants are attempting to alienate or transfer the property so as to defeat the plaintiff from enjoying the usufructs if he ultimately gets one. So bearing in mind that principle it is the duty of the Court to pass orders on merits and I am informed that the case is posted on 3.3.2008. So I direct the Court below to hear and pass appropriate orders on the said date. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-