IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1567 of 2010(O) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/12/09 IN IA 1071/2009 IN OS.102/2009 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- KOLKKADAN, MOHANAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.CHOYIKKUTTY, ERNAD TALUK, ANTHIYOORKUNNU AMSOM, VELLARU DESOM. BY ADV. MR.P.SHAMSUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.SUHAIB, S/O.MAMMAD HAJI, MUNDAPPALAM, PO.KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. M.P.ASHAR, S/O.KOMUKKUTTY, PERIYAMBALAM, PO.PULIKKAL, CHERUKAVE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.1567 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of January 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Petitioner is a third party in a suit O.S No.102 of 2009 on the file of Sub Court, Manjeri. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the court in the suit directing interim attachment of a motor vehicle he moved a claim petition and also another petition seeking his impleadment as an additional defendant in the suit. He was impleaded as the additional 2nd defendant in the suit. His claim petition was also allowed vide Ext.P10 order with a direction to furnish security for a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-. Direction issued by the court to furnish security, that alone ordered in Ext.P10 order, is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. . 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the other exhibits tendered with the writ petition and considering the submissions made by the learned counsel, I find that prior to passing of Ext.P10 order over the vehicle attached, the court had passed an order on anapplication moved by a third party for releasing that attached vehicle to that party on execution of a kychit. Apparently the present Ext.P10 order had W.P.(C).No.1567 OF 2010 Page numbers been passed on the application moved by the present petitioner without notice to that party to whom the vehicle had already been released. I do not want to express any opinion on the merit of Ext.P10 order which had been passed without notice to the party to whom the vehicle had been released on execution of a kychit. Petitioner can also move a petition for reviewing Ext.P10 order before the court below and passing of orders afresh after issuing notice to the party to whom the vehicle had already been released and also to the other parties in the suit. If any such petition is filed, the court below shall consider and dispose it on its merit in accordance with law taking note that without giving notice to the party to whom the vehicle had been already released passing an order like Ext.P10 behind his back is improper and not legally sustainable. Petitioner can also highlight whatever grievance over the direction given for furnishing security for release of the attached vehicle in the review petition against Ext.P10 order. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv