IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17958 of 2009(O) -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.545/2006 IN OS.66/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- ELIZABETH.A.GEORGE, D/O.P.GEORGE, KOKKARAVARATHU VEEDU, T.W.WARD, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI, MR.P.M.JOSEPH. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. VASUNDARAN, S/O.SREEDHARAN, CHARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.R.SHEEBA, D/O.RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 37, CHARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.17958 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.66/2006 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for specific performance filed by the respondents, two in number. Second respondent is the power of attorney holder of the first respondent. Suit was based on an agreement of sale purported to have been executed by the petitioner and the first defendant agreeing to sell the properties of the former to the latter subject to the terms and conditions specified in the agreement. The respondent/plaintiff sought for an interim attachment of two items of properties belonging to the petitioner/defendant. According to the petitioner when the court issued an order for attachment only one item, A schedule alone, was specified. But, later, when the petitioner went to collect some records from the village office, in respect of B schedule, it was noticed that, that property was also stated to be under attachment by orders of the court. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for issuing a W.P.(C).No.17958 of 2009 - O 2 direction/order to cancel the order of attachment over B schedule property described in the above suit. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner with reference to Ext.P6 order issued by the court to the Amin, I find the petitioner has to approach the court concerned to seek appropriate direction/order if he has got a case that the attachment order is confined to A schedule in the suit alone. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move such application before the court concerned, this writ petition is closed. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of the judgment, it shall be heard and disposed of by the learned Sub Judge with notice to the opposite party within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-