IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Ex.FA.No. 18 of 2010() ---------------------- {OS.94/2001 OF THE PRL.SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM} .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT/DECRE HOLDER ---------------------------------------------------- SWAMI ASARI, S/O. NATESAN ASSARI, DOOR NO.26/106, MARTHANDAM, NALKUR VILLAGE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.N.R.SURESH KUMAR SMT.ROSAMMA MATHEW SRI.ANZAR BASHEER SRI.R.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): CLAIM PETITIONER ------------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. HEAD OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHANDRIKA, KINARUVETTIYA VILA, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SALINI.S. D/O. SYRANDHRI, CHARIVUVILA POTTAYIL VEEDU, KOTTUKAL.P.O., KOTTUKAL VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. AMMU, D/O. SALINI (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SALINI, CHARIVUVILA POTTAYIL VEEDU, KOTTUKAL.P.O. DO-DO- ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS EXECUTION FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Ex.FA.No. 18 of 2010 :: :: ORDER ON I.A.No.834/10 IN Ex.FA.No. 18 of 2010 DISMISSED. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 27.5.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- Ex.F.A.No.18 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of money against respondents 2 to 4. He obtained an order of attachment in execution of that decree. The 1st respondent co-operative bank filed a claim petition contending that it has a mortgage in its favour and is a secured creditor and the attachment is to be lifted. The court below, being satisfied of the existence of the mortgage and the fact that the bank is a secured creditor, lifted the attachment. 2. When this appeal was taken up on an earlier occasion, we wanted the appellant to state whether he would pay off the amounts due to the bank so that the claim of the bank would get satisfied. Even today, there is no offer to do so. He would stand only to say that the property, after being put to sale in the course of execution of the decree, the bank may be directed to adjust the amount that may be Ex.F.A.No.18 of 2010 :: 2 :: generated from the sale, to satisfy the decree amount. We are not satisfied. 3. There is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. We also find that the court below has considered the entire facts and evidence in accordance with law. We find no ground interfere with the impugned order. Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.