IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 Arb.A.No. 47 of 2009() ---------------------- OPARB.102/2007 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------- KIAN PRATHAP, THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM PO, ATTICKAL PONKUNNAM, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.SANTHARAM SRI.ANTO THOMAS SRI.LAKSHMEESH.S.KAMATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & FIRST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, GATEWAY BUILDING, APOLLO BURDER, MUMBAI 400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ANOOP CHANDRAN, BRANCH IN CHARGE, PALAKKADU,RESIDING AT RAMNIVAS, ANGADIPURAM PO MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,KERALA. 2. MANOJ KUMAR P.R, KASI -PAINANIYIL, (IDAPADIYIL) HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O.MOLLAKUNNAM, CHIRAKKADAVU VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,KERALA 686 506. ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. FOR R1 SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE FOR R2 THIS ARBITRATION APPEALS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ Arb.Appeal No.47 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd March, 2010 JUDGMENT BASHEER,J. When this appeal is taken up for consideration, Sri.Betson who appears for respondent No.1 submits that the impugned order has worked itself out in as much as the validity period of the interim order of attachment is already over. It is further submitted that in view of the above development, respondent No.1 does not seek the benefit of the impugned order and therefore the appeal has become infructuous. 2. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 who was the petitioner before the court below and the beneficiary of the impugned order, the appeal is closed. The impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that the property of the appellant is now free of attachment. 3. It is brought to our notice that respondent No.1 has already initiated prosecution against respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In Arb.Appeal No.47 of 2009 2 that view of the matter also the grievance against the appellant who is stated to be only a guarantor to the loan agreement may not survive. Therefore the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. BASHEER,JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE ma Arb.Appeal No.47 of 2009 3 Arb.Appeal No.47 of 2009 4