IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRP.No. 1268 of 2003() ---------------------- OS.263/1996 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DECREE HOLDER: ---------------------------------- K.V.RAMANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, VELIYIL HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O. ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/GARNISHEE: ------------------------------------------- 1. SHAHUL HAMEED, PAPPASWAMY, KAMBIKKAKATHU, ZILLA COURT WARD, AVALLAKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL.R3: 3.P.C.ANTONY, PALLATH HOUSE, ASRAMAM WARD, AVALOOKKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.10.2003 IN I.A.NO.1483/03 ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO FOR ADDL.R3 SRI.C.A.RAJEEV FOR ADDL.R3 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR,SC, KSRTC FOR R2 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.270 OF 2003 OF C.R.P.1268 OF 2003 DISMISSED. 23.2.2010 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1268 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 O R D E R The revision is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha declining the request of the decree holder for releasing the amount deposited by the garnishee in the execution proceedings by allowing his cheque application. The learned Munsiff dismissed that application for the reason that an attachment order in respect of the amount in deposit is in force by the orders passed by anther competent civil curt. The cheque application was therefore dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the attachment order passed by the other court in no way bar the release of the amount deposited by the garnishee as the attachment only prohibits or interdicts the judgment debtor and does not apply to involuntary alienations by the orders of the court. I find no merit in the submissions made. The court is bound to honour the communication received from the C.R.P.1268/03 2 competent civil court as to the attachment made over the deposit in its custody. The release of the amount in the given facts of the case, can be considered only subject to the provisions as envisaged by law. There is no merit in the challenge against the order impugned in the revision and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NO.1268 OF 2003 () ----------------------------------- O R D E R 23rd February, 2010