IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 OP(C).No. 2750 of 2011(O) --------------------------------- OS.484/2005 of ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANIL BOSE, S/O.SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, AGED 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT RANI BHAVAN, VILABHAGHAM, VETTOOR, NEDUNGANDA POST, CHIRAYINKEEZHU. 2. A.SALEEM, S/O.ALIYARUKUNJU, AGED 50, RESIDING AT SWADIYA GARDENS, KOCHUVILA MUKKU, ALAMKODE POST, ATTINGAL FROM 'DONE', SANKAR NAGAR-223, NEMOM WARD, KAIMANAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. RUHAILA BEEVI, D/O.RAHUMA BEEVI, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT SWADIYA GARDENS, KOCHUVILA MUKKU, ALAMKODE POST, ATTINGAL FROM 'DONE', SANKAR NAGAR-223, NEMOM WARD, KAIMANAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.R.KISHORE SRI.ARUN BABU SRI.G.HARIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------- K.SATHYANANDAN, S/O.KOCHURAMAN, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT SUVARNALAYAM, ASRAMAM MIDDLE WARD, KOLLAM. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2011, ALONG WITH OPC. NO.2751/2011 OPC. NO.2752/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs O.P.(C). NO.2750/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1611/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. P2: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF TO I.A NO.1611/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. P3: COPY OF THE I.A. NO.1769/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. P4: COPY OF THE I.A.NO.2511/2011 IN THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).Nos.2750, 2751 and 2752 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Notice to the respondent is dispensed with in view of the decision I propose to take in these proceeding. 2. All these original petitions arise from three suits, two of which are disposed of and one, pending in the Court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kollam. O.P(C).Nos.2750 and 2751 of 2011 arise from O.S.Nos.484 and 476 of 2005, respectively O.P (C).No.2752 of 2011 arises from O.S.No.496 of 2005. In O.S.Nos.484 and 476 of 2005 immovable property belonging to the petitioners 2 and 1, respectively were attached before judgment. Those suits were dismissed later on merit. Petitioners in O.P(C).Nos.2750 and 2751 of 2011 wanted to dispose of their property and on enquiry it was revealed that following the dismissal of O.S.Nos.484 and 476 of 2005 no intimation was given to the Sub Registrar concerned that the attachment is lifted. According to the petitioners, in view of Rule 9 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code”) when the suits were dismissed such intimation ought to have been given to the Sub Registrar. Hence, petitioners in O.P(C). O.P(C).Nos.2750, 2751 and 2752 of 2011 -: 2 :- Nos.2750 and 2751 of 2011 filed I.A.Nos.1611 and 1612 of 2011, respectively in O.S.Nos.484 and 476 of 2005, respectively requesting learned Sub Judge to lift the attachment and intimate that matter to the Sub Registrar. In those cases, first respondent/plaintiff filed objections stating that he has challenged dismissal of the suits in R.F.A.No.305 of 2011 of this Court and A.S.No.19 of 2011 of the District Court, Kollam, respectively. 3. In O.P(C).No.2752 of 2011, the suit – O.S.No.496 of 2005 is pending consideration. There, claim of plaintiff is for `.3,98,595/- with future interest @12% per annum and cost. In that case, property of second petitioner was placed under conditional attachment vide order on I.A.No.3139 of 2005. According to the second petitioner, as required in the order of conditional attachment, he has deposited `.4,00,000/- with the State Bank of Travancore on 06.04.2011 for a period of two years and the fixed deposit receipt is produced before learned Additional Sub Judge. He filed I.A.No.1609 of 2011 to lift the attachment under Rule 9 of Order XXXVIII of the Code. 4. Grievance of petitioner is that all the said applications – I.A.Nos.1609 of 2011, 1611 of 2011 and 1612 of 2011 (in O.P(C).Nos.2750, 2751 and 2752 of 2011 -: 3 :- O.S.Nos.496 of 2005, 484 of 2005 and 476 of 2005, respectively) remain undisposed of and are being adjourned for no reason. Hence, it is prayed that learned Additional Sub Judge may be directed to dispose of the said applications within a time frame. 5. I do not think it appropriate to direct disposal of the applications within a time frame. Nor do I indicate in what manner the said applications are to be disposed of. But if the steps on the said applications are complete and there is no legal impediment in disposing of the same, learned Additional Sub Judge has to pass appropriate orders, as the law and circumstances warranted on the pending applications. Resultantly these original petitions are disposed of directing learned Additional Sub Judge, Kollam to dispose of I.A.Nos.1609 of 2011, 1611 of 2011 and 1612 of 2011 in the above said cases, if steps are complete and there is no legal impediment in doing so, as early as possible as circumstances and the law warranted (if those applications are not already disposed of). (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-