IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7188 of 2009(O) ------------------------------------- IA 1621/2008 IN OS.19/2002 of SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- CHACKO, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.NEDUNGOTTIL VARKEY, PUTHOOR VILLAGE,VELLUKADU P.O., PUTHENKAD DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON MR.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. JOSE,AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.MOLOPARAMBIL MATHEW 2. ELEZABETH THOMAS, AGED 63 YEARS, D/O.KOTTARAMPARAMBIL THOMAS 3. ANZAS, AGED 46, D/O.MOLOPARAMBIL JOSE 4. SAJI, AGED 38, S/O.JOSE 5. SABU, AGED 40, S/O.JOSE 6. SAMTHOSH, AGED 35, S/O.JOSE ( RESPONDENT 1 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT CHAZHIYATTIRI AMSOM DESOM IN OTTAPALAM TALUK) 7. JOMY, AGED 54, S/O.VADAKKAN JOSEPH, PUTHOOR VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 8. SHAJU, AGED 40, S/O.NADUVILPEEDIKA LONAPPAN, PUTHURKODE DESOM, PUTHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7188 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Subordinate Judge, Ottappalam. The suit was filed for realisation of money. The suit was dismissed on 11.12.2007. The petitioner has filed an appeal as R.F.A.No.57 of 2009. The appeal is pending. 2. Pending the suit, respondent Nos.1 to 6 had sought permission to cut and remove the rubber trees standing in the properties. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the trees were auctioned for a sum of Rs.2,39,000/-. The amount was deposited in court. 3. After dismissal of the suit, respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed an application for the issue of a cheque for release of the amount in court deposit. That application came up on 16.6.2008 and it was adjourned to 30.6.2008 for counter. No counter was filed. The counsel for the Writ Petitioner herein reported no instructions. Therefore, the trial court passed an order to issue cheque. Stating that the petitioner did not receive any intimation WPC No.7188/2009 2 from the counsel when the application for cheque was presented by respondent Nos.1 to 6, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1621 of 2008 to review the order passed by the court below issuing cheque to respondent Nos.1 to 6. That application for review was dismissed by the court below as per Ext.P6 order dated 12th November 2008, which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The court below held that there is no ground for review of the order issuing cheque to respondent Nos.1 to 6. 4. There is no dispute that the amount in court deposit represents the value of the trees standing in the property belonging to respondent Nos.1 to 6. The claim of the petitioner is on account of a contract entered into between himself and respondent Nos.1 to 6 for slaughter tapping of rubber trees. That claim was rejected and the suit was dismissed. It is true that an appeal is pending. But, no stay was granted. Though ample opportunity was afforded to the Writ Petitioner to file objections in application for issue of cheque, objections were not filed. His counsel reported no instructions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registered letter issued by the counsel did not reach the destination and it is clear that the WPC No.7188/2009 3 letter was returned to Ottappalam within two days. That is a matter between the counsel and the petitioner. There is no ground to withhold the amount in court deposit. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the rightful claimants for the amount in view of the decision of the trial court. Therefore, I am of the view that the court below was right in dismissing the application for review. No interference is called for. The Writ Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl