IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 9233 of 2009(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 570/09 IN OS.139/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.IMBICHIMOYI,S/O.MOIDEEN, PONNAMPURATH HOUSE, PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, POST KAYALAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.K.DAMODARAN,S/O.CHANDUKUTTY, AMBAZHATHINGAL,PERUVAYAL AMSOM DESOM, POST PERUVAYAL,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C)NO. 9233 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 24th day of March,2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.139/2001 on the file of Sub Court, Kozhikode. The suit was decreed and the order of attachment passed by the trial court before judgment was made absolute. R.F.A.197/2004 is pending before this court challenging the decree. In that appeal, petitioner filed I.A. 4513/2008 an application for vacating the attachment of the property by furnishing security. The property was attached before the judgment. It was contended that petitioner is prepared to give sufficient security. As per Ext.P1 order the Division Bench held that the order of attachment will stand lifted, on condition that petitioner furnish a security for Rs.4,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court. It was W.P.(C) 9233/2009 2 directed that after recording satisfaction of the security, the trial court has to intimate the order lifting the attachment to the Sub Registry. It is also provided that in case the security offered is not found satisfactory, the matter is to be reported to the Division Bench. 2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India contending that learned Sub Judge is not disposing the application and therefore a time limit is to be fixed. 3. It is seen that Ext.P1 order was passed on 5.12.2008. But Ext.P2 application was filed before the court only on 9.2.2009, two months thereafter. Therefore even on the part of the petitioner there was delay. Ext.P1 order provides that in case the security offered is found not satisfactory, the matter is to be reported to the Division Bench. In such circumstance,the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Division Bench in the pending appeal and not to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C) 9233/2009 3 Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to approach the Division Bench. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006