IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 FAO.No. 203 of 2010() --------------------- I.A. NO. 885/2009 IN OS.168/2009 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: A.V.JOSE,S/O.LATE A.J.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT ALUKA HOUSE,ARISTO ROAD, THRISSUR-680 005. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. JANARDHANAN,S/O.KANDAMPILLY KUMARAN, RESIDING AT KANDAMPILLY HOUSE,WARRIAM LANE, THRISSUR. 680 001. 2. SHEELA JANARDHANAN,W/O.KANDAMPILLY KUMARAN,JANARDHANAN,RESIDING AT WARRIAM LANE, THRISSUR. - 680 001. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. 203 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. J U D G M E N T Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The plaintiff in a suit for money is before us. He obtained an order of attachment before judgment on I.A. 885 of 2009. That order dated 21.3.2009 was reviewed by the court below by order on I.A. 2947 of 2009 on 19.11.2009. Thereafter, the court below took up the application for attachment before judgment and heard the parties on the basis of affidavits on record. The plea of the defendant that they do not intend to alienate the property weighed with the court below and ultimately dismissed the application for attachment before judgment. Obviously, in the light of the defendants' assertion that they do not intend to sell the property, the court below was persuaded to take the view that there is no ground referable to Rule 38(1) to further proceed with the application for attachment before judgment. We do not go into the controversy as to whether such an order is an appealable one. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the impugned order amounts to discharging an order of attachment earlier imposed. FAO 203/2010 2 2. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that after the earlier review order as noticed above, the impugned order is one passed afresh and it will not be an appealable order within the format of Order 43 Rule 1(q). We record this submission; but deem it unnecessary for us to answer that question since even if we permit this appeal to be converted as a revision, it would not be heard by a larger quorum. 3. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we dispose of this appeal without interfering with the impugned order; however directing that the court below will make an endeavour to expedite the final disposal of the suit after trial, having regard to the fact that this is a suit for money. Appeal ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, (JUDGE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-