IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 36004 of 2007(J) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2914/07,IA.1628/07 IN OS.93/2007 of ADL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: ------------ KOYYOT SHYLENDRAN, S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, BUSINESS, GURUPRABHA, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. VAZHAYIL LEELA, AGED 75, W/O.GOVINDAN, RAMAVILLA, KAKKAD ROAD, KANNUR-1 AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK. 2. KOYYOT SATHYANATHAN, AGED 51, S/O.GOVINDAN, BUSINESS. 3. KOYYOT PREMARAJAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, 50 YEARS, BUSINESS. (2 AND 3 ARE WORKING AT CHERRY RAM JEWELLERY MARKET ROAD, KANNUR-1). 4. KAYYOT PRASANTH, 42 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, BUSINESS. 5. KAYYOT PRAMOD, 48 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, BUSINESS (4 & 5 ARE WORKING AT UMESH JEWELLERY NEAR NEWS STORE, BELLARD ROAD, KANNUR 1). 6. PANKAJAN, 44 YEARS, W/O.JAYACHANDRAN, HOUSEWIFE. 7. SANIYA, 26 YEARS, D/O.JAYACHANDRAN. 8. DHANYA, 23 YEARS, D/O.JAYACHANDRAN. 9. DIVYA, 20 YEARS, D/O.JAYACHANDRAN. 10. NITHIN, 13 YEARS, S/O.JAYACHANDRAN. 11. KOYOTT RAJITHA, 38 YEARS, D/O.GOVINDAN, NO OCCUPATION. 12. KOYYOT PRASANNA, 46, W/O.RAGHU, DO. (NOS. 6 TO 12 ARE RESIDING AT RAMA VILLA KAKKAD ROAD, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-1). 13. KOYYOT REETHA TEACHER, 42 YEARS, W/O.RAMESHAN, TEACHER, PLAY PEN SCHOOL, KANHIRATHIN KEEZHIL, CHOKLI POST, CHOKLI AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK. 14. GEETHA UMESH KUMAR, 44 YEARS, W/O.UMESH KUMAR, 1/15 OLD GANJAWALA BUILDING, TARDEV, MUMBAI-34, MAHARASHTRA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.K.ANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 16.3.01. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.93/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.1628/07 IN O.S.93/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER STATEMENT IN I.A.1628/07 IN O.S.93/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A.2914/07 IN I.A.1628/07 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO EXT.P5 APPLICATION. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.2914/07 IN O.S.93/07. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.1628/07 IN O.S.93/07 OF THE COURT OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, THALASSERY. [ True copy ] P.A. to Judge. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 36004 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of March, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed against the order in I.A.1628/07 in O.S.93/07. The said application is one for lifting the attachment. Another application I.A.2914/07 is filed for amendment of the counter statement in the application for attachment. It was allowed on costs of Rs.150/-. So far as the application for lifting the attachment is concerned the Court primarily was of the view that the question of limitation may loom large and therefore vacated the order of attachment. After hearing both sides before this Court I am pursued to pass an order whereby the defendant in the suit can be directed to furnish security in the form of a Bank guarantee for the amount claimed in the plaint within a period of two months from today. Therefore I do not propose to go into the merits of the case and I make it further clear the Court below also shall not be guided by its W.P.C 36004 OF 2007 -:2:- observation in the order while considering the suit. So far as the amendment is concerned it does not call for any interference. Therefore the writ petition is disposed of as follows. 2. The order allowing the amendment application by the Court is confirmed. So far as the attachment application is concerned the defendants in the suit are directed to furnish Bank guarantee or in the form of Fixed Deposit receipt for the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- within a period of two months from today and on furnishing the Bank guarantee within the stipulated period, the order of attachment will cease to have effect and they will be at liberty to deal with the property in any manner which they want. Being a money suit the Court may endeavour if possible to try for an expeditious disposal. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-