IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH SUNDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2010 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).NO. 844 OF 2010(O) -------------------------------------- OS.928/2010 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SHAJU P.SIMON, S/O.P.O.SIMON, PULLEKKARAN VEEDU, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHYLAJAN, S/O.PRAKASAN, AGED 43 YEARS, AMBALLOOR P.O., CHIRAYINKEEZU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ P.KRISHNAMOORTHY, S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 39 YEARS, 'INDEEVARAM', KOTTARA LANE, GOWREESHAPATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695004. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON 24/10/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.844 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the claim petitioner in O.S. No.928 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. Respondent filed the suit against defendant in the suit for recovery of money and on 31.03.2010 (as the learned counsel submits) obtained attachment of 11 cents as if the entire property belonged to the defendant. Learning about the attachment petitioner filed Ext.P1, claim petition claiming that 5 cents out of the said 11 cents had been purchased by the petitioner on 22.07.2010 as per assignment deed No.2216/2010 and hence the said property was not liable to be attached. Respondent filed Ext.P2, objection to the claim petition. Claim petition was posted on 10.11.2010 and now it is posted on 05.03.2011. Learned counsel submits that under cover of the order of attachment respondent is not permitting petitioner to enjoy the property by constructing compound walls around the property. Learned counsel contended that since even before filing the suit and the order of attachment the five (5) cents was purchased by petitioner, O.P(C) No.844 of 2010 -: 2 :- the order of attachment is liable to be vacated. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Rajan v. Jayashree Nayar (2010[1] KLT 142) in support of that contention. 2. Question whether attachment is valid or not on the contention above stated is a matter which the court below has to decide and hence I am not going into that question in this proceeding. However having regard to the difficulty expressed by learned counsel it is only appropriate that claim petition is disposed of as early as possible. Hence learned Sub Judge is directed to dispose of Ext.P1, claim petition as early as possible by preponing the same from 05.03.2010 to a near date with notice to all concerned. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv