IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 533 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AS.18/2009 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER -------------------- VASANTHAKUMARI, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. K.SIVARAMAN, NARAMADA BHAVAN, MANAKKARA MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JAYAPRASAD, S/O. KUNJUKRISHNAN NAIR, KOYAPPURATHU VEEDU, PALLISSERICKAL MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O 690521. 2. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/OP. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, KOCHUPUTHUPPALLIL, THURUTHIKKARA MURI, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE. SASTHAMKOTTA P.O 690521. 3. SREKALA, KOIPPURATHU VEEDU, PALLISSERICKAL MURI, SASTHAMKOTTA, SASTHAMKOTTA P.O 690521. NOW RESIDING AT HARI NIVAS, THEKKEVILA MURI, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.533 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November 2010 JUDGMENT This petition has been filed by the appellant in A.S No.18/2009 on the file of the 3rd Additional District Court, Kollam challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of Ext.P5 order passed in the above appeal. Suit giving rise to the above appeal was one for damages and after trial, it was dismissed. Pending suit, there was an order of attachment over the property of third respondent on an application moved by the petitioner/appellant. After dismissal of the suit, the third respondent moved an application before the trial court for lifting the attachment over her property. Stay over the proceedings of that application requested for by the appellant having been turned down by the appellate court by Ext.P5 order, the petitioner has preferred the above petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted by the counsel, some observations, which are factually incorrect, made in Ext.P5 order are likely to cause prejudice to him even in having a fair disposal of the appeal on merits. O.P.(C)No.533 OF 2010 - 2 - Petitioner has contended that first and second respondents, as associates of the third respondent, has committed trespass over the building and caused damages. The court below has observed in Ext.P5 order that he had no case that the third respondent trespassed and committed any damages. That was not his case and, in fact, he had specifically alleged that the acts done by first and second respondents are at the instance of the third respondent. After going through Ext.P5 order with reference to the submissions made by the counsel, I find, there is no impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the court below in turning down the request for lifting the attachment. With the dismissal of the suit, the attachment ordered by the trial court stood vacated. Probably third respondent had moved an application to send communications to the revenue offices and also to the Sub Registry that the attachment is not continuing. The petitioner/appellant admittedly has not moved any application before the court below after filing of his appeal to get an order to have continuance of the attachment granted by the trial court. When such be the case, his request for staying the proceedings in the application moved by the third respondent, as rightly held by the court below, could not have been entertained. As regards the observations made, if any, in Ext.P5 order, which O.P.(C)No.533 OF 2010 - 3 - are stated to be prejudicial to the appellant, it need only to be stated that the appeal has to be disposed of untramelled by any of the observations made in the interlocutory application. Subject to the above observations, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv