IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32882 of 2008(M) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3749/2008 IN OS.890/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAMES G OOMMEN, S/O.LATE GEEVARGHESE OOMMEN, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAROOR SHARON VILLA, CHUNGATHARA, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. M/S.EISEN & BROTHERS(P)LTD, 108, MIDDLE ROAD, # 05-02,BRIGHT CHAMBERS, SINGAPORE- 188967,REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.EISEN & BROTHERS (P)LTD, BUILDING NO.XIV/1036, MALAYALI SABHA LANE, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. 2. COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH W.P.C.Nos.32901,32883,32909 OF 2008 ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(c).Nos.32882,32883,32901 & 32909 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioners in these writ petitions are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.890,888,889 and 891/2008 respectively before the Sub Court, Kollam. The said suits are filed for recovery of amounts ranging from 60 lakhs to 85 lakhs by way of damage for the loss sustained due to the alleged breach of contract by the 1st respondent / 1st defendant in the case who according to the plaintiffs failed to consign necessary quantities of raw cashew nuts to the plaintiffs for the purpose of process and export. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed interlocutory application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(3) for conditional attachment. According to the petitioners, huge quantity of raw cashew nuts belonging to the 1st defendant is in the custody of the Cochin Port Trust and if pending the application for interim attachment, the said stock of cashew nuts are disposed of by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff will not be able to effectively get an order on the petition filed before the lower court. The court below has passed the following order in I.A.No.3749 of 2008 in O.S.No.890/2008. W.P.(c).No.32882 of 2008 2 Heard the matter. Issue notice to CPI directing him to show cause why security should not be furnished for Rs.60 lakhs within 15 days from today. Issue order accordingly. Issue notice to CP2 R/N 22.11.2008 return of summons 30.1.2009 on court Similar orders has been passed in the other suits also. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the court below having entertained the application and having arrived at the requisite satisfaction under Order 38 Rule 5 should have made a conditional order of attachment with regard to the raw cashew nuts belonging to the 1st defendant and in the custody of Cochin Port Trust failing which by the time the petition comes up for hearing on 22.11.08, the defendant would dispose of the cashew nuts under his custody to the detriment of the petitioner. In the light of the above narrative facts, I do not think that the matter should be kept pending before this Court by ordering notice to the respondents. In addition to the order passed by the court below there will be a direction to the Cochin Port Trust not to release the goods to the 1st respondent in the four suits till 22.11.08. It shall be open to the trial court to pass appropriate orders on 22.11.08. Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj