IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2008 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 110 OF 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/03/2007 IN IA.6373/07 IN OS.822/2007 OF II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF G.MAGHESH BABU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.GOVINDA RAJALU, VAISALI, VANIYAMOOLA ROAD, MELARANNOOR, KARAMANA, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.EUGINE HERBERT RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT N.SUBAIDA BEEVI, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.NABEESA BEEVI, KAVUVILAKATH PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, UTHIYARMOOLA MURI, AYIROORPARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O. 110/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 1770/2008 IN F.A.O. NO. 110 OF 2008 // DISMISSED // SD/- P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 110 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This is an appeal against the order passed by the II Additional Sub Court, lifting the attachment earlier granted. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance. According to him, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lakhs) was paid by way of advance to the defendant. Though the plaintiff was ready and willing, the defendant was not ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation by executing the sale deed and hence the suit was filed. The contention raised in the plaint is denied in the written statement. As a matter of fact, according to the defendant, she is still ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and requested the court to fix a date. But the plaintiff was not willing. Anyway, these are all matters which the court below has to adjudicate in the suit after taking evidence. However, it cannot be said that the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff to grant an attachment as prayed for. As a matter of fact, the court below, had granted an attachment earlier and only subsequently, it was vacated after appreciating the contentions and after F.A.O. 110/2008 :2: considering the balance of convenience. Further, the plaintiff, being an unpaid vendor, has got a statutory charge for the amount to be repaid. In such circumstances, we do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court. However, we make it clear that whatever observations made by the court below can only be for the purpose of considering the interim prayer for attachment and it will not affect the final verdict in the suit. Untrammelled by any such observation, the court below shall dispose of the matter based on the evidence let in by the parties. The appeal is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-