IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2008 / 17TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23905 of 2008(U) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2008 IN EP 51/04 IN OS.68/1990 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER --------------- K.A.ABRAHAM, KALEEKKAL VEEDU, MAZHUKKERMELMURIYIL, THIRUVANVANDOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------- VINSON ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.J.VINCENT, CHARANGATTU VEEDU, KAVIYUR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23905 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the plaintiff-decree holder in O.S.No.68 of 1990, on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. Respondent judgment debtor filed E.A.No.112 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla, seeking permission to furnish security for the entire amount and release the order of attachment of the immovable property. Under Ext.P4 order, executing court directed release of attachment of the property with a direction to deposit Rs.16,51,762/= within one week. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P4 order, 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. 3. The learned counsel argued that executing court should have directed release of the entire amount and petitioner is even prepared to execute a bond. The learned counsel argued that W.P.(C) No.23905 of 2008 2 the decree in O.S.No.68 of 1990 has become final, and in such circumstances, executing court should have directed to pay the entire amount to the decree holder. 4. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in Ext.P4 order. Under Ext.P4 order, learned Sub Judge only permitted judgment debtor to sell the property after releasing the property from attachment, and that too, on condition of deposit of the entire amount due to the decree holder under the decree. The question whether petitioner is entitled to withdraw that amount will arise only on deposit of the amount before the Executing court. Petitioner is entitled to apply before the Executing court to release that amount to him, once the amount is deposited. If there is no appeal against the decree in O.S.No.68 of 1990 and no order of stay of execution of the decree, petitioner is entitled to get that amount from the executing court. The writ petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.