IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25293 of 2010(O) -------------------------- ORDER DATED 5.7.2010 IN CMA NO................./2010 OF DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.2692/2010 IN OS.369/2010 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAYMOND,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.CHAKRAMMAKKIL JACOB,MAMMIYOOR DESOM,GURUVAYUR AMSOM,CHAVAKKAD TALUK,THIRUSSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MEERABAI,AGED 52 YEARS,W/O.KARAYIL BALAN PERINJANAM DESOM,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 2. MANIKANDAN,AGED 26 YEARS,S/O.KARAYIL BALAN,PERINJANAM DESOM,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 3. MURALIMOHAN,AGED 22 YEARS,S/O.KARAYIL BALAN,PERINJANAM DESOM,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. 4. RAPPAI,S/O.KALLARIKKAL OUSEPH, CHEMBUKKAVU VILLAGE,DO DESOM,THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25293 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Notice to respondents is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this Writ Petition. 2. Petitioner filed a suit for money against respondents and filed I.A.No.2692 of 2010 to attach the immovable property belonging to the respondents. There was a conditional attachment of property which was later lifted on the objection raised by the respondents. Challenging that order, petitioner preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge, Thrissur. That appeal was returned for the reason that “lower court order produced is not a speaking one”. The order returning appeal memorandum is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned counsel states that not only that the appeal ought to have admitted but that order of the learned Additional Sub Judge was not a speaking order was by itself a ground to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court to pass appropriate orders. 3. I am not going into the question whether for the reason stated by the learned counsel the appeal is liable to be allowed. That is a matter which the learned District Judge has to decide. But I was not able to find any provision of WP(C) No.25293/2010 2 law which enabled return of memorandum of appeal for the reason that the order under challenge is not a speaking order. Clearly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed in the following lines: i. The order of learned District Judge returning memorandum of appeal is set aside. ii. Learned District Judge is directed to consider the appeal on merit and decide whether the appeal is to be admitted and notice to respondents is to issued. iii. Petitioner or counsel shall appear in the court of learned District Judge, Thrissur on 19.08.2010. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks