IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 4016 of 2011(O) ------------------------- IA.1309/2011 IN OS.211/2011 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... PETITIONER ---------------- SHOBITHA, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.NAZARUDEEN, NAHIYA MANZIL, NEAR SREEKRISHNASWAMY TEMPLE, KESAVAPURAM, VELLALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.JIJI RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. AMBIKA, D/O.SARASAMMA, AGED 40 YEARS, ASWATHY NIVAS, KESAVAPURAM, VELLALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 601. 2. NAZARUDEEN, AGED 42 YEARS, NAHIYA MANZIL, NEAR SREEKRISHNASWAMY TEMPLE, KESAVAPURAM, VELLALLOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 601. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk OP(C).No. 4016 of 2011(O) -------------------------------- APPENDIX ----------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS -------------------------------- EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMENT PETITION IA NO.1309/2011 IN OS 211/2011 FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ATTINGAL. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 8.8.2011 ON EXT.P1. EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.8.2011 IN OP(C) NO.2801/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------- / TRUE CPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== O.P(C) No.4016 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Second defendant in O.S. No.211 of 2011 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Attingal is aggrieved by the non-disposal of Ext.P1, application for attachment before judgment as per which a conditional order of attachment has been issued. 2. First respondent filed the suit for recovery of money based on a dishonoured cheque allegedly issued by the second respondent, husband of petitioner. Along with the suit, Ext.P1 application for attachment was preferred and property (allegedly) of petitioner was placed under conditional attachment. According to the petitioner, she has no connection with the alleged transaction between respondents 1 and 2 and her property was attached as if it belonged to the second respondent. Petitioner therefore preferred objection to Ext.P1, application requesting for dismissal of the said application. Petitioner approached this Court with O.P(C) No.2801 of 2011 seeking a direction for early disposal of the said application. This Court disposed of that Original Petition by Ext.P3, judgment dated 25.08.2011 observing O.P(C) No.4016 of 2011 -: 2 :- that it is open to the petitioner to request the learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P1, application as early as possible if all the steps on that application are over and there is no legal impediment in doing so and if any such request is made learned Sub Judge shall consider the request. 3. Learned counsel submitted that along with copy of Ext.P3, judgment petitioner filed application to advance hearing of the application before learned Sub Judge on 26.09.2011 but Ext.P1, application was not heard. 4. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel I called for a report from the leaned Sub Judge (through the Registrar [Judicial]). The Registrar (Judicial) after contacting learned Sub Judge has reported thus: (i) There is at present no legal impediment in disposing of I.A. No.1309/2011 in O.S. No.211/2011 as early as possible. (ii) The learned Sub Judge, however, informed that nobody moved that Court for early disposal of the I.A in the light of the observations O.P(C) No.4016 of 2011 -: 3 :- made in Ext.P3, judgment dated 25.08.2011 in O.P(C) No.2801/2011. The I.A stands posted to 04.02.2012. The learned Sub Judge informed that if the party moves that Court, he is prepared to advance the posting date and dispose of the I.A within 15 days thereof”. 5. Though learned counsel asserted that an application to advance hearing was filed along with the copy of Ext.P3, judgment before the learned Sub Judge but the report given by the learned Sub Judge does not reveal that. I am not going into that matter further. 6. When Ext.P3, judgment was passed this Court permitted petitioner to request learned Sub Judge for early disposal of the application. It contained a message that learned Sub Judge should expedite disposal of the application. I fail to understand why the application was kept pending if as the learned Sub Judge has now informed this Court, it could have been disposed of within 15 days. 7. Now that learned Sub Judge has expressed willingness to dispose of the application as early as possible I make it clear O.P(C) No.4016 of 2011 -: 4 :- that it is open to the petitioner to file application to advance hearing and if any such request is made learned Sub Judge shall pass appropriate orders having regard to the grievance of petitioner and ensure that Ext.P1, application is disposed of as early as possible. I make it clear that for the time being I am not fixing any time limit for disposal of Ext.P1, application as learned Sub Judge in the report has stated that the application could be disposed of within 15 days. Original Petition is disposed of as above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv