IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2009 / 2ND POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 37262 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.275/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- J.NEELANKANDAN NAIR,S/O.JANARDHANAN NAIR DEVI NIVAS,PALLILAMGARA, TRIVADRUM. BY ADV. MR.S.SREEKUMAR MR.P.MARTIN JOSE MR.P.PRIJITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. H.D.F.C.BANK LTD,MATHEW SQUARE, OPPOSITE NORHT RAILWAY STATION,COCHIN-18, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER & DEPUTY MANAGER(LEGAL). 2. SMT.THRESSIAMMA VARGHESE,AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.VARGHESE,GATEWAY INTERNATIONAL,MAYUR BUSINESS CENTRE,CHITTOOR ROAD,PULLEPPADY JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. 3. M.Y.VARGHESE,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.YOYAKEY,MAMALIKUDY HOUSE,MANOOR,KEEZHILL, COCHIN. ADV. MR.T.RAJESH FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.37262 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the third defendant in O.S.No.275 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. First respondent has filed the above suit for recovery of money against the petitioner and two others in which recovery is sought only as against first and second defendants. First respondent-bank had provided a loan to the first defendant in the suit to purchase a vehicle on the guarantee of the second defendant. The loan amount was defaulted and the terms violated and later, it is alleged, the vehicle hypothecated to the bank had been alienated to the third defendant, the present petitioner. In the suit, first respondent had moved an application for interim attachment of the vehicle before judgment and that was allowed by the court. Ext.P2 is the application filed seeking attachment before judgment by the first respondent/plaintiff-bank. After interim order of attachment was passed by the court first respondent moved an application for police aid to seize the attached vehicle. Ext.P3 is the copy of that application. Grievance espoused by the petitioner/third W.P.(C).No.37262 of 2009 - O 2 defendant is that though objections were filed to Exts.P2 and P3 applications despite several adjournments, those petitions are not heard and disposed. Hence petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking issue of a writ/direction/order to the court below to hear and dispose of Exts.P2 and P3 application expeditiously. 2. Notice given, first respondent-bank has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I direct the learned Sub Judge to hear and dispose of Exts.P2 and P3 applications, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the learned counsel on both sides on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-