IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36366 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------- OS.54/2004 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ TONY JOSE, AGED 41, S/O.PAZHAYI JOSEPH, PARIYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. DAVIS, S/O.PAZHAYI POULOSE, PARIYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. JOJO, S/O.KOKKADAN ROY, PARIYARAM VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. MR.R.KRISHNA RAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.36366/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS. 54/04 DTD. 19.10.2005 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CA. 41/08 -09 IN OS. 54/04 DTD. 3.9.08 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.36366 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the decree holder in a suit for money. In the suit to lift the interim attachment ordered, the 1st respondent/1st defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- before the court. After passing of the decree, petitioner/decree holder moved an application for issuing a cheque for the decree amount from the sum deposited by the 1st respondent/1st defendant. That application was objected to by the 1st respondent, who had already preferred an appeal seeking permission to prosecute the appeal as an indigent person. His petition seeking permission to challenge the decree in appeal as an indigent person is still pending consideration. Taking note of the above circumstance that an appeal with an application to prosecute it as an indigent person by the 1st respondent is pending for consideration, the learned Additional Sub Judge dismissed the cheque WPC.36366/08 2 application vide Ext.P2 order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel on both sides. I find no impropriety or illegality in Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Additional Sub Judge declining the request of the petitioner/decree holder for issue of the cheque in respect of the amount deposited by the 1st respondent to lift the attachment order over his property. Interim attachment before judgment is ordered to secure the suit claim in case a decree is ultimately passed in favour of the plaintiff. After decree for realisation of the decree debt, petitioner has to take steps as provided by law. He has to execute the decree and seek for its satisfaction. Security furnished, whether it be by deposit or any other mode, by the opposite party, can be proceeded against in such execution proceedings. Ext.P2 order will not stand in the way of the petitioner/decree holder in getting the deposited amount made by the 1st respondent in WPC.36366/08 3 satisfaction of the decree by taking appropriate steps for executing the decree. Needless to point out, if there is no stay of execution of the decree, the court then has to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed accordingly. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp