IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3847 of 2011(O) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/11/2011 IN IA NO. 1490/2011 IN OS.157/2011 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .............................................. PETITIONER(S)/(PLAINTIFF): ------------------------------------------- JOHNY PAUL, S/O.POULOSE,AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PUTHENKUDI HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY P.O,RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM 683545 BY ADV. SRI.M.HARISHARMA RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SUNNY S, S/O. SATHYANESAN AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT H.NO.33/2356,'SRUTHI',GEETHANJALI ROAD VYTTILA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM 682 019 2. TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD; XL/4118, 1ST FLOOR,T.D. ROAD,FLOWER JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 035, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : DCS OP(C) No. 3847 of 2011 (O) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 157 OF 2011 PENDING BEFORE THE ` SUBORDINATE COURT,PERMBAVUR EXT.P2 COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1490 OF 2011 IN O.S. 157 OF 2011 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUBORDINATE COURT, PERUMBAVUR IN I.A.NO.1490 OF 2011 IN O.S. 157 OF 2011 DATED 11.11.2011 EXT.P4 COPY OF THE BOGUS SALE DEED DATED 17-04-2008 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-04-2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3847 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.157 of 2011 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Perumbavoor. He is aggrieved by Ext.P3, order dated 11.11.2011 on I.A.No.1490 of 2011. In the suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement for re-conveyance of the suit property in favour of petitioner, it was revealed that 1st respondent had created a mortgage of the property in favour of 2nd respondent for Rupees thirty lakhs. Thereon petitioner filed Ext.P2, application (I.A.No.1490 of 2011) for attachment of another property of the 1st respondent. On that application learned Sub Judge passed Ext.P3, order and issued notice to the 1st respondent. Grievance of petitioner is that while issuing notice, no conditional order of attachment was issued. Hence petitioner is aggrieved. 2. It is contended that in case petitioner is obliged to discharge liability of the 2nd respondent to save the property, interest of the petitioner has to be protected. OP(C)No.3847/2011 2 3. It is open to the petitioner to raise appropriate contentions before the learned Sub Judge and seek appropriate relief at the appropriate stage. I do not find reason to interfere with Ext.P3, order. Original Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks