IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25366 of 2008(T) ----------------------------------------- (I.A.NO.1675/2008 IN O.S.NO.90/2003 OF SUB COURT, TRICHUR) PETITIONER: --------------------- COMMONMAN'S CHITTIES AND LOANS PVT.LTD, ERINHERI ANGADI, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-K.N.FALGUNAN. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SMT. S.AMINA RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. ANNIE, W/O.FRANCIS "BLESSINGS", CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, PADOOKKAD, THRISSUR. 2. JOY, S/O.ARIMBOOR CHEVOOKARAN ANTONY, CHEROOR, THRISSUR. 3. EMPLOYEES KURIES AND LOANS PVT.LTD., ERINHERI ANGADI, THRISSUR. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 25366 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash Ext.P5 order passed by Sub Judge, Thrissur, suo moto in Ext.P3 application. Under Ext.P3 application, petitioner sought transfer of Rs.2,78,413/- deposited by the garnishee in O.S.90 of 2003, towards the amount due under seven decrees. As the petition was not opposed by the judgment debtor, it was allowed under Ext.P4 order. Subsequently when the office pointed out that there were orders of attachment of the amount by which Court cannot transfer the amount, Ext.P5 order was passed. 2. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that when Ext.P3 application was allowed, learned Sub Judge was not justified in suo moto reviewing that order. It was argued that if Ext.P5 order is allowed to stand, petitioner cannot realize the decree debt due under the seven decrees as second respondent judgment debtor may withdraw that amount. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Ext.P3 application, it is seen that Ext.P4 order was originally WP(C)25366/08 2 passed in that application. Ext.P5 order was subsequently passed. It is clear that when Ext.P3 petition was allowed under Ext.P4 order, learned Sub Judge did not verify whether there is any order of attachment in respect of the amount sought to be transferred under Ext.P3 petition. For the reason that petition was not opposed by the judgment debtor, under Ext.P4 order, Ext.P3 petition was allowed. But, when it was brought to the notice of the learned Sub Judge that the amount could not have been transferred because of order of attachment, Ext.P5 order was passed. True, the order could have been passed after notice to the petitioner and hearing him. By Ext.P5 order learned Sub Judge suo moto reviewed the original order passed under Ext.P4 without notice or hearing the petitioner. As the grievance of the petitioner is that he was not heard, learned Sub Judge is directed to pass fresh orders in Ext.P3 application, after hearing the petitioner. Till the order is passed in Ext.P3 application, learned Sub Judge is directed to not to disburse the amount covered under Ext.P3 application. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-