IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11652 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.35/2001 of SUB COURT,ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.Y.RASHEED, RESIDING AT FARIS, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE TRADING COMPANY, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, K.JOHN MATHEW, PARKLINE HOUSE, M.O.WARD, ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.11652 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.35 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Alappuzha. 2. The reliefs prayed for in the Writ Petition are the following: “(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Sub Court, Alappuzha to grant instalment facilities to the petitioner. (ii) issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the Sub Court, Alappuzha, from attaching the movables as mentioned in Ext.P9 and further direct Sub Court, Alappuzha to dispose of Ext.P10 forthwith. (iii) stay all further execution proceedings in O.S.No.35 of 2001 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha until the disposal of this Writ Petition. (iv) Award costs and (v) Any other reliefs this Hon'ble Court deems fit.” 3. The first prayer is to grant instalment facility to pay off the decree debt. The petitioner has not made any such prayer before the lower court. Therefore, there is no justification for considering that request in this Writ Petition. The second prayer is to prohibit attachment of movables. The court below ordered WPC No.11652/2009 2 attachment of the movables. The Writ Petitioner obstructed the Amin. Ext.P9 application was filed by the decree holder to afford police protection to effect the attachment. It is stated that the court below has allowed that application. When the court has ordered attachment of movables, the judgment debtor was not entitled to obstruct. The court below was justified in ordering police assistance to the Amin. Therefore, the second prayer is not sustainable. 4. The next prayer is to stay all further proceedings till the disposal of the Writ Petition. Since relief Nos.(i) and (ii) are not granted, relief No.(iii) is unsustainable. Sri.Krishna Mani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 application (E.A.No.188 of 2009) before the court below to release the attached movables to the petitioner on bond and that appropriate relief may be granted releasing the movables to the petitioner. The lower court has to consider that application. In this Writ Petition, that prayer cannot be considered. The Writ Petition is accordingly closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the court below for appropriate orders as per law. K.T.SANKARAN,JUDGE csl