IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).NO. 3640 OF 2011(O) --------------------------------------- OS.178/2011 OF SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SATHYASEELAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAPILLAI, PERUMBALLIL HOUSE, PAZHUTHURUTHU KARA, NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- SREEJITH, S/O.RAVEENDRANATHAN, VELLAPPALLY HOUSE, KURICHITHANAM KARA, KURICHITHANAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK - 686 575. ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM FOR R SMT.MERRY GEORGE FOR R THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P(C) NO.3640 OF 2011 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.178 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, PALA. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.1474 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.178 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.1817 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.178 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.1819 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.178 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT ISSUED FROM FEDERAL BANK, KADAPLAMATTOM BRANCH. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P3. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO EXT.P5. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2011 IN I.A. NO.1817 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.178 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, PALA. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.10.2011 IN I.A. NO.1819 OF 2011 IN O.S. NO.178 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, PALA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3640 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 09th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Respondent appears through counsel. 2. This original petition is in challenge of Ext.P10, order dated 22.10.2011 on I.A.No.1819 of 2011 in O.S.No.178 of 2011 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Pala whereby attachment over the property of respondent was lifted on the security of amount (allegedly) deposited in the name of the respondent as evidenced by Ext.P6. 3. Petitioner sued the respondent for recovery of Rs.12,50,000/- with interest and cost and alleging that respondent is about to dispose of his property to defeat the claim of petitioner, obtained a conditional attachment of the said property. In answer to that respondent, appearing (allegedly) through his power of attorney holder and mother produced Ext.P6, ONR cash certificate dated 14.10.2011 showing deposit of Rs.14,00,000/- with the Federal Bank Limited, Kadaplamattom Branch in the name of Sreejith Vellappallil, Ravindranatha, Al Ahalia Switch Gear Company, Unit 5 PB No 25876 PROJ, Kuwait, Pin-13119 which is to mature on 04.10.2016, the maturity value O.P(C).No.3640 of 2011 -: 2 :- being Rs.21,84,713/-. Learned Sub Judge accepted that cash certificate and lifted the attachment. That order is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that though the power of attorney holder claimed to be representing the respondent, no document was produced in the trial court to show that the power of attorney is authorised to represent the respondent in the suit. It is also pointed out that Ext.P6 is not a fixed deposit and it is not shown that the person in whose name the amount is deposited is the respondent. According to the learned counsel, it is possible for the respondent if at all the amount is deposited by him to withdraw the said amount at any time or raise loan on the security of the said deposit. According to the learned counsel, respondent is attempting to dispose of his only property and if that happens, recovery of the amount due under the decree that may be passed will become impossible. 5. Learned counsel for respondent represented by the power of attorney holder submitted that the deposit as per Ext.P6 is made by the respondent himself though, his address abroad is shown in the said certificate. The power of attorney holder of the respondent is prepared to file affidavit that the person who has deposited the amount as per Ext.P6 is none other than the respondent himself. It is also submitted that the respondent is the son of the power of attorney holder. O.P(C).No.3640 of 2011 -: 3 :- 6. I am inclined to think, having heard counsel on both sides that such an affidavit with further conditions imposed in the matter would be sufficient to allay the apprehension of petitioner and ensure that if the decree is passed as prayed for, the amount due could be realised from the amount deposited as per Ext.P6. Resultantly this original petition is disposed of as follows: (i) The power of attorney holder of the respondent shall within a week from this day file affidavit in the court below stating that the person in whose name the deposit as per Ext.P6 is made is the respondent himself. Until that affidavit is filed, respondent shall not dispose of his property which was placed under conditional attachment. (ii) It is made clear that respondent or anybody else shall not withdraw any amount from or raise any loan on the security of the amount in deposit as per Ext.P6 until otherwise directed by the learned Sub Judge. (iii) It is also made clear that in case the suit could not be disposed of within the period of maturity referred in Ext.P6, it is open to the learned Sub Judge to direct that the deposit be renewed for such further period as is found necessary. (iv) In case the suit is decreed, it will be open to the petitioner to realise the amount due from the amount in deposit as per Ext.P6. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-