IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 120 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/09/2005 IN IA 1417/02 IN OS.260/2002 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS ------------------------------ 1. MAJOR P.G.KUTTY (RETIRED), RESIDING AT LAKSHMI, THAMBURATTY, PARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPILLY, COCHIN. 2. MRS.VIJAYALAKSHMI KUTTY, W/O.P.G.KUTTY, RESIDING AT LAKSHMI, 35/2583, THAMBURATTY PARAMBU ROAD, EDAPPILLY, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PANANGATT POLIMER PACKINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, BINANIPURAM, EDAYAR, ALUVA, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT SREEKOVIL, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. N.NALINI, W/O.LATE C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEKOVIL, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. N.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O.LATE C.UNNIKRISHNAN AND W/O.K.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, SREEKOVIL, MARAR LANE, THRISSUR. 4. N.SURESH BABU, S/O.LATE C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SREEKOVIL, MARAR ROAD, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) FOR R1 TO 4 SMT.R.RAJITHA FOR R1 TO 4 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- FAO 120 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 23rd July 2009 Judgment RAMAN, J. This is an appeal against an order refusing to lift the attachment. The suit is one for realisation of money. The property belonging to the appellants was attached. It is contended that the liability, if any, of the second appellant will only be to the tune of Rs.46,000/- and therefore, the property belonging to the second appellant need not continue in attachment. During the pendency of the appeal, the first appellant died. So, necessarily, the second appellant would be one of the legal heirs. If so, it is open to the appellants to move a fresh petition. It is also submitted that there is a talk of compromise. In the circumstances, we do not find any fault in the order now passed. However, this will not stand in the way of the continuing appellant moving a fresh application to lift the attachment and if the court is satisfied after hearing the parties that any item of property under attachment should be lifted, it may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta FAO 120/05 2 FAO 120/05 3