IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37298 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.66/2002 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MATHEW @ KUNJOONJU, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI @ PAPPANKUTTY, MADATHIKANDATHIL HOUSE, PETTANADU KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- MYTHEEN, S/O.MEERAN, KANINICKAL HOUSE, PETANADU KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.37298 OF 2009 (O) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.56 of 2009 in O.S.No.66 of 2002 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha, and the respondent is the decree holder/plaintiff. In the above suit, a decree of mandatory injunction was passed directing the judgment debtor to construct a granite wall in the plaint B schedule property as identified in the C2 plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner. A prohibitory injunction was also passed against him. A time limit was fixed for construction of the wall and presumably for the reason that the decree was not complied with, the decree holder filed the execution petition. On an application moved by the decree holder, it is the grievance of the petitioner that another property belonging to him was attached to satisfy the cost and other expenses allowed in the suit, which according to the decree holder, amounted to nearly Rs.1 lakh. WPC.37298/09 2 Petitioner/judgment debtor has applied for a copy of the order, but it has not been furnished so far. He has not been given an opportunity before the court passed an order of attachment is the case of the petitioner submitting that already he had made some arrangements for disposing that property. He has therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking the indulgence of the court for keeping in abeyance that order till a copy of the order is furnished enabling him to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 2. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondent is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is prepared either to furnish security or tender the amount as determined before the court till consideration of a disposal of Ext.P4 application filed by the decree holder. It is open to the petitioner to file a petition before the court below to review the order passed directing attachment of his property. If any such petition is filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order WPC.37298/09 3 undertaking to furnish security or tender the amount as determined by the court to satisfy the cost and other expenses claimed by the decree holder, the court below shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of the judgment. Writ petition is accordingly disposed. Handover a copy of the judgment to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp