IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2008 / 23RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30195 of 2008(T) -------------------------- E.A.103/05 IN E.P. 21/01 IN OS.391/2003 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- P.O.VARGHESE, VAYALARIKATHUPUTHENPURAYIL VEEDU, KALANJOOR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. K.N.SUNDARSANAN, KARUMALIL VEEDU, PUNNATHALACHERRY, KOLLAM. 2. K. AJITH, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PROPRIETOR, K.N.K.TAILORS, KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 30195 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T This Writ Petition is preferred to set aside Ext. P4 order of the Subordinate Judge, Kollam in E.A. 103/05. This matter has come up before this court on an earlier occasion and in the light of the observation in Execution First Appeal 34/04 this Court made it clear that “The appellant is therefore free to withdraw that amount on condition that the appellant returns the entire movables attached as per the schedule to the petition for attachment”. Out of 26 Sewing machines involved only 16 were returned and therefore this Court found that there is no substantial compliance with the order passed in the execution appeal. But this court gave an opportunity to return the other sewing machines and then withdraw the amount. There was an application to review the order which was dismissed by this court with the observation that any other legal remedy provided will not be barred by disposal of the review application. Thereafter all the sewing machines had been returned and therefore the court below has ordered return of W.P.(C) No. 30195/2008 -2- the amount of Rs. 54,000/- as directed by the court. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that he has filed some other application and it is pending before the court. If he wants any remedy it is for him to pursue that matter and this court cannot go beyond its directions for the reason this court has made it very clear that on return of the entire movables, a person is entitled to withdraw the amount. Therefore no relief can be granted in this writ petition and therefore it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. vkm