IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23486 of 2010(O) -------------------------- OS.88/2010 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- RITTY JOSEPH, S/O.P.M.JOSEPH, PULICKAL, ETTUMANOOR P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. K.R.DILEEPKUMAR, S/O.LATE T.V.RAGHAVAN, KALIYANATTU VELLIYIL HOUSE, MARARYKULAM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. DIANA, D/O.K.V.INDIRA, KUNNATHUKALATHIL, KUMARAKOM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 563. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.23486 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.88 of 2010 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Cherthala. That is a suit for recovery of money seeking a decree charged on the suit property from respondent No.1 based on a demand promissory note. Petitioner alleged that if the suit property has already been transferred by respondent No.1, it was intended to defeat creditors of respondent No.1 and hence is a fraudulent transaction. Petitioner applied for and obtained conditional attachment for the said property. Respondent No.2 filed Ext.P3, claim petition claiming that the attached property belonged to her as per settlement deed No.3229 of 2008 executed by respondent No.1 and that herself and others are in possession and enjoyment of said property. Ext.P3, claim petition is posted for further enquiry on 05.08.2010. Learned counsel states that examination of witnesses has already started on that claim petition. While so, petitioner filed Ext.P6, application to implead respondent No.2 and other beneficiaries under settlement deed No.3229 of 2008 as additional defendants in the suit and for a consequential amendment of plaint seeking a declaration that the document in question is intended to defeat creditors of respondent No.1 including petitioner, is sham and is fraudulent. That application is pending. According to the learned WP(C) No.23486/2010 2 counsel if Ext.P3, application is disposed of before Ext.P6, application is considered and appropriate order is passed, petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and injury. 2. As Ext.P6, application for impleadment and amendment of plaint is filed, learned Sub Judge could dispose of Ext.P3, claim petition only after disposing of Ext.P6, application. Hence it is appropriate to direct learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P6, application before Ext.P3, claim petition is disposed of. Resultantly this Writ Petition is disposed of directing learned Sub Judge, Thrissur to dispose of Ext.P6, application before Ext.P3, claim petition is disposed of. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks