IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 24845 OF 2010(O) ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA.48/09,EP.101/09 IN ARB.95/2007 OF DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SHIBU VARGHESE THOMAS, POONJATHODU HOUSE THURITHIKKADU P.O., KALLOOPARA, MALLAPPALLY. 2. MARIYAMMA THOMAS, POONJATHODU HOUSE, THURITHIKKADU P.O., KALLOOPARA, MALLAPPALLY. BY ADV. SMT.D.MINI RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- MUTHOOT VEHICLE & ASSET FINANCE LTD., (EARLIER MUTHOOT LEASING & FINANCE LTD.)MUTHOOR CHAMBERS,KURIEN TOWERS,BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,GEORGE ALEXANDER MUTHOOT,REP.BY P/A.HOLDER & ASST.MANAGER,THIRUVALA BRANCH-MR.K.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KONDOOR THAZHE H. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24845 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner No.1 is a judgment debtor in E.P.No.101 of 2009 of the court of learned District Judge, Pathanamthitta. There was a dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent, said to be a financier for purchase of a car. Dispute was referred to the Arbitrator for a decision. In the meantime petitioner preferred a complaint before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum but it was dismissed against which he has preferred an appeal. That appeal is pending. Arbitrator passed award directing petitioner No.1 to pay Rs.1,48,611/- with interest and based on that, respondent launched execution in the court of learned District Judge. In the course of execution proceeding, respondent sought attachment of property of petitioner No.1 and that application was allowed by Ext.P10, order. There is thus an attachment of property of petitioner No.1. In this Writ Petition, it is stated that petitioner No.1 really intends and wishes to settle the whole dispute with respondent but in the meantime his property is attached by Ext.P10, order. Hence it is prayed that Ext.P10, order may be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent to give petitioner No.1 a chance to settle the matter through Adalath. Learned counsel states that petitioner No.1 is willing to settle the dispute if the matter is sent to Adalath for consideration. WP(C) No.24845/2010 2 2. So far as challenge to Ext.P10, order is concerned, I do not find any irregularity and illegality requiring interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. If petitioner No.1 wants to lift the attachment on furnishing security in the light of decision in Sidharthan v. Praveen Chandran (2008 (1) KLT 136) it is open to him to seek assistance of executing court for the said purpose. It is also open to petitioner No.1 to request the executing court to refer the matter to the Adalath for settlement as provided under law. With the above observations, Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks