IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17730 of 2010(O) -------------------------- AC.7/1997 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- KURIAN JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE JOSEPH THOMAS, VALIYAVEETTIL PUTHENANGADI HOUSE, SUDHALAYAM, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT: --------------- V.P. GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, VALIYAVEETTIL PUTHENANANGADI HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 29/5, LANE NO.1, TOC-H SCHOOL ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI -19. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.C.No.17730 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 08th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner and respondent are brothers and at a time when they were moving together started a partnership which run into difficulties leading to respondent moving the arbitrator and getting an award in his favour. Based on that award respondent filed E.P.No.62 of 2004 in the court of learned Additional District Judge- II, Ernakulam and properties of petitioner were attached. Petitioner filed M.F.A.No.1431 of 2001 in this court and the matter was sent for mediation. In the mediation parties reached a settlement as per which petitioner was to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent within 90 days of lifting attachment over the property since that would enable petitioner get a bank loan. According to the petitioner, respondent did not intimate the order of court to the office of Sub Registrar on time and hence petitioner could not raise the loan. He therefore sought extension of time for payment by three months and got time till 31-04-2010. He has paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to the respondent and is prepared to pay the balance amount within a short time. In the meantime, his properties are again placed under attachment as per Exts.P5 W.P.C.No.17730 of 2010 : 2 : and P7, orders which are under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel states that petitioner is prepared to pay entire balance amount within 10 (ten) days from this day and that during the said time attachment under Exts.P5 and P7 may be kept in abeyance. The prayer is opposed by the respondent. Learned counsel states that even after initial attachment petitioner has transferred a portion of the property which was under attachment over which there was a charge as per Ext.P1. This of course is disputed by learned counsel for petitioner. According to him transfer was not at a time when attachment was in force and it was a few years back. 2. It is not necessary for me to go into those controversies in this proceeding. Now the question is whether attachment ordered in Exts.P5 and P7 could be lifted or kept in abeyance as requested by learned counsel for petitioner. Even when attachment is made in the execution proceeding it can be lifted either on satisfaction of the amount due under the decree or on furnishing sufficient security (as the Division Bench of this court has held in Sidharthan Vs. Praveen Chandran (2008(1) KLT 136). Without either of that, court cannot lift the attachment or keep it in abeyance. Therefore request of the petitioner to lift the attachment or keep the same in abeyance cannot be entertained. It W.P.C.No.17730 of 2010 : 3 : will be open to the petitioner to furnish sufficient security to the satisfaction of the executing court and request for lifting the attachment as held by the Division Bench of this court in the decision referred supra. With the above observation the writ petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-