IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 FAO.No. 81 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2007 IN IA.3644/2007 IN OS.653/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: --------- BABY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.JOHN CHIRAMMAL HOUSE, RESIDING AT ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.M.R.DHANIL RESPONDENTS: ----------- KANNAN, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.LAKSHMIKKUTTY AMMA, KOOLIYAMBAT HOUSE PARLIKKAD P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1316/2008 IN FAO.NO.81/2008 -------- Dismissed Sd/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. 4/4/2008 Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. P.R. RAMAN & V. K. MOHANAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 81 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the court below in I.A. 3644/2007, in that as against several items of property sought to be attached, the attachment was confined to item No.2 alone and the further direction that the order of attachment will be lifted in case an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is paid by way of Bank guarantee. According to the petitioner, during the pendency of the suit, Item No.1 was sold. As a matter of fact, in para 4 of the order, reference is made to an oral undertaking not to alienate any property. But no affidavit as such was filed. Therefore, the attachment petition was advanced for hearing and after hearing the parties, the court thought it fit to order attachment of Item No.2. It is not shown after placing reliance on any materials that attachment of Item No.2 alone will not be sufficient to safeguard the interest of the appellant. The question as to whether attachment of any one of such item will be sufficient will depend on the value it will fetch. In this case, the court below passed an order against Item No.2. There is no case for the petitioner that the said property will not be sufficient to satisfy the decree that may be eventually passed. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the court below. Dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) V. K. MOHANAN, (JUDGE) knc/-