IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 17TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).NO. 27912 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------- OS.987/2010 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, RESIDING AT T.C.26/1508(I), PRESS ROAD,PULIMOODU, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.R.S.MADHU RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- HAJA RAHMAN , AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.HUSSAINAR LABBA, RESIDING AT HAJA MANZIL, PERUMKULAM PO, KEEZHATTINGAL DESSOM & VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) No. 27912 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.987 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the petitioner before me challenging Ext.P6, communication directing the Amin of that court to place the immovable properties mentioned therein under conditional attachment. In the meantime petitioner and other contesting defendants have been called upon to show cause why they shall not furnish security for the sum of Rs.1,84,50,000/-. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the order leading to Ext.P6, communication is illegal since the suit is merely for specific performance of an agreement for sale. There is no alternative prayer for refund of advance money (which is only Rs.5 lakhs) and under no stretch of imagination court below could ask petitioner and other contesting defendants to furnish security for Rs.1,84,50,000/- which according to respondent No.1-plaintiff is the total consideration payable as per the agreement for sale. W.P(C) No.27912 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. As it is, there is only a conditional attachment with direction to the petitioner and other contesting defendants to show cause against furnishing security. It is open to the petitioner and other contesting defendants to show cause why they shall not furnish security and if at all there is a final order against them under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) that order is appealable under order XLIII Rule 1(q) of that Code. Since statutory remedies are available to the petitioner there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the impugned order at this stage. Without prejudice to the statutory remedies available to the petitioner and other contesting defendants as stated above, Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv