IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 25823 of 2009(O) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/06/2009 IN IA. 1082 /2009 IN OS.147/2009 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.KUTTY, PERUMBATTU, KEEZHMADU KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MOHAMMED ASLAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ABDULKHADER, S/O.AMMU, MUNDAKKAMATTATH, MEZHUKKATTIL, KEEZHMADU KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.25823 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 15th September, 2009 JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “To call for the records of the court of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur leading to Exhibit P8 order and to quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.147 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, North Paravur. Suit is one for recovery of money and the respondent is the plaintiff. In an application moved by the respondent/plaintiff for interim attachment of the property of the petitioner/defendant, notice was given and later P8 order was passed for attachment of the property till the detailed hearing for the reason security was not furnished. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the Writ Petition by the petitioner/defendant invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard W.P.C.No.25823/09 - 2 - to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and the circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. No notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order 38 of the C.P.C. was given to the petitioner and, so much so, the interim order passed by the court under P8 is unsustainable is the submission of the learned counsel. I find no merit in the submission. The court has not passed an order of interim attachment as covered by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Order 38 of the C.P.C. and that being so, the challenge canvassed by the learned counsel is unworthy of any merit. After giving him notice and a counter filed, the court has passed an order for interim attachment till the detailed hearing of the petition holding that no security had been furnished. I direct the court below to hear and dispose the application moved by the plaintiff for attachment as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE