IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 25172 of 2010(O) --------------------------------------- OS.1608/2004 of III ADDL.M.C.EKM (RENT CONTROL) .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAJITHA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.NOUSHAD, KOTTAL CHAKKALAYIL, PATHIYOOR EAST, KEERIKKAD, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- M/S.MUTHOOT CAPITAL SERVICES LTD., REGD.OFFICE MUTHOOT TOWERS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL EXECUTIVE T.N.BHUVANENDRAN. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KL. THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C).NO. 25172 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Respondent instituted O.S.No.1608/2004 in the court of learned Munsiff, Ernakulam for recovery of money based on financial assistance rendered to the petitioner for purchase of a motor cycle. In the course of the suit, property of petitioner was placed under attachment. An exparte decree was passed in the suit. Later, petitioner filed Ext.P2, application to lift the attachment claiming that she has paid the whole amount due to the respondent under the decree. That application was dismissed as per Ext.P3, order observing that application is not maintainable and that petitioner has to move under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for shot, “the Code”). Ext.P3, order is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner asserted and, learned counsel for respondent admitted that respondent has received the entire amount due under the decree. Thus, there is no dispute that the decree stands satisfied fully. 3. The next question is whether attachment over the property could be lifted on Ext.P2, application. Learned Munsiff observed that petitioner W.P(C).NO. 25172 OF 2010 2 has to apply under Order 21 Rule 2 of the Code. That provision concerns to certification of payments made to the decree holder out side court. In this case, there is no dispute regarding satisfaction of the decree. What is concerned is only whether request for lifting the attachment can be allowed. Request for lifting the attachment can be made either on the trial or execution side. Now that the decree has been fully satisfied in full and the respondent also has no objection in the attachment over the property being lifted, I do not find reason why Ext.P2 application should not be entertained. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3, order is set aside. Ext.P2 application will stand allowed and the attachment lifted. Learned Munsiff shall intimate the fact of lifting the attachment to the Sub Registrar concerned on receipt of a copy of this judgment. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm