IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 11652 of 2008(K) -------------------------- OS.62/2008 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. VINOD KUMAR JACOB, S/O. JACOB, AGED 38 YEARS, PAZHOOKUDY HOUSE, RAMALLOOR KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, KOTHAMANGALAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. NOUSHAD, S/O. ABDUL REHMAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, THANGALAM KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, KOTHAMANGALAM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. BEENA THOMAS, D/O. LATE THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, PUTHEN BUNGALOW, KOTHAMANGALAM POST, KAROOR KARA,KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ANITHA THOMAS @ ANITHA MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,PUTHEN BUNGALOW, KOTHAMANGALAM POST, KAROOR KARA,KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/04/2008 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.C. NO. 11652 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the Subordinate Judge, Muvattupuzha to consider and pass orders in Ext.P3 application as expeditiously as possible and also to issue a direction restraining the respondents from alienating the property in Ext.P3 during the pendency of Ext.P3. The suit is one for realisation of advancement of Rs.40,00,000/-. Along with the plaint an application for attachment has been moved as Ext.P3 with a prayer for direction to furnish security and also for an interim order of conditional attachment. It is seen that one of the respondents namely the first respondent has filed objection to the attachment application. Now, the apprehension of the writ petitioners herein is that the 2nd respondent is living abroad and if the Court waits for return of notice ordered to him then the very purpose of it will be defeated and W.P.C 11652 OF 2008 -:2:- therefore the Court may pass appropriate orders in order to protect the right of the plaintiff. The learned counsel also would submit even if the half right of the first respondent is considered that will be sufficient. The prayer in the attachment application requires consideration for the reason that if the property is alienated one will not be able to enjoy the usufructs of the decree. Therefore I permit the writ petitioners herein to raise these arguments before the Court below when it comes up for hearing and also direct the Court to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on or before 11.4.08. I make it clear that I cannot give any direction to pass any orders in a particular way but I direct the Court below to consider the grievance raised by the plaintiff in the case which requires consideration at its hands. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-