IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16880 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1556/2008 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- VAREED, AGED 45, S/O.RAPPAI, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, THEKUMKARA VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- K.T.BENNY, AGED 39, S/O.KUNJALIL THOMAS WADAKKANCHERY VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER FOR R1 SRI.B.RAGHUNANDANAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.16880/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.1556/08 DATED 6.11.08 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.8147/08 IN O.S.NO.1556/08 DATED 6.11.2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE SBT, THRISSUR BRANCH DATED 5.5.07. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, DIC, THRISSUR DATED 28.11.07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P2 APPLICATION DATED 2.4.09. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LOWER COUT DATED 2.4.09. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF ATTACHMENT IN O.S.NO.1556/08 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.8147/08 IN O.S.NO.1556/08 DATED 4.4.09 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.16880 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the defendant in O.S.No.1556/2008 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur against an order passed by the learned Sub Judge in an application moved by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC seeking the interim attachment of the movables (machineries) from the industry conducted by the petitioner. Suit is based on a promissory note for Rs.6,15,000/-. With the suit, the respondent/plaintiff moved an application seeking an interim attachment alleging that the petitioner/defendant intends to dispose his properties and leave the jurisdiction of the court. An interim order of attachment was ordered as prayed for by the plaintiff over the movables scheduled in his petition. When the Amin deputed to effect the attachment went over to the workshop of the petitioner, it appears some unpleasant incident took place and he filed a report before the court. The learned Sub Judge WPC.16880/09 2 thereupon passed another order for implementing the interim attachment with police aid. Those two orders are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Divergent versions are presented by the counsel on both sides as to what transpired when the Amin deputed by the court went over to give effect to the order passed by the court for attaching the movables in the workshop of the petitioner/defendant. In the present writ petition, I need not consider those aspects because on the basis of the report of the Amin, the court below is expected to take whatever steps necessary. The only question to be considered is the propriety and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge for attaching the movables in the workshop of the defendant. It is submitted that the defendant has filed objections to the application and no final order as contemplated under Order XXXVIII Rule 6 of CPC has been passed so far. When the writ petition was moved before this Court, it was submitted that the WPC.16880/09 3 petitioner/defendant had given an undertaking before the court by way of an affidavit unconditionally stating that he will not remove the movables sought for attachment in the petition. In the light of such an undertaking given, the order impugned were directed to be kept in abeyance. I find that state of affairs can continue only till the application moved by the plaintiff for attachment is heard and disposed on merits by the learned Sub Judge, which shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above directions, this writ petition is closed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel on both sides on usual terms. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp