IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 Ex.F.A.No. 10 of 2004 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2003 IN EA.387/2001 IN EP.56/01 IN OS.26/1994 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL AS CORRECTED BY ORDER DATED 1.12.2003 IN E.A.354/03 IN THE ABOVE E.P. .................... APPELLANT-CR.PETITIONER-DECREE HOLDER ------------------------------------------------------ SHIRAS S/O.DYADHARAM PILLAI, SHIRAS COTTAGE, AYIROOR DESOM AND DO.VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.GEORGE VARGHESE KANNANTHANAM SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM RESPONDENT: PETITIONER-CLAIM PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- SUNIL KUMAR, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND POSSESER RAJAMMA, PANAYIL VEEDU, MEENADU CHERI MEENADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1463 OF 2004 IN EX.F.A.NO.10 OF 2004 DISMISSED 2.6.2008 SD/- PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ex.F.A.No.10 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 2nd June, 2008 JUDGMENT The claimant filed the claim petition long after the attachment order and the documents relied on by the claimant were executed after the attachment order. But the issue whether the properties were liable to be attached was considered in the suit as issue No.1. In other words, the relief which the claim petitioner sought to gain by filing the claim petition had been granted to him by the judgment itself. It is not disputed before me that the judgment has become final. By allowing the claim petition what the learned Subordinate Judge done was only to reiterate the findings in issue No.1 in the judgment. The appeal fails and the same will stand dismissed. No costs. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE