IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932 OP(C).No. 562 of 2010(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/10/2010 IN IA.1587/2010 IN OS.134/2010 of MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- P.T.MOHAN BABU, JAYABHARATHAM GARDANS, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. M/S.JAYABHARATHAM FINANCIERS (REGD.), PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER P.T.SURESH BABU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. P.T.SUBASH BABU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS VAIDYAN, JAYABHARATHAM BUNGLOW, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. SHOBHIN SAM, VARIKKAVILIL THAZHATHU VADAKKU P.O., PATTAZHI, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2010, ALONG WITH O.P(C).Nos.565, 563 AND 564 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(C).No. 562 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : PLAINT DTD. 31-03-2010 IN O.S.No.134/2010 ON the FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR EXHIBIT P2 : ATTACHMENT PETITION FILED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT IN O.S.No.134/2010 ON the FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR DTD 31.03.2010 EXHIBIT P3 : I.A.No.1587/2010 IN O.S.No.134/2010 ON the FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR DTD 28.07.2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 : OBJECTION DTD 06-09-2010 FILED BY THE 3rd RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P5 : ORDER DTD 04.10.2010 IN I.A.No.1587/2010 IN O.S.No.134/2010 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL True Copy THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.562, 563, 564 and 565 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 18th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT As directed by this court on 04-11-2010 notice has been served on the counsel appearing for respondents in the trial court and memo is also filed. Service on counsel is sufficient in view of Rule 59 of the Kerala High Court Rules. Hence, I proceed to dispose of these petitions. 2. Petitioners are claimants in O.S.Nos.134, 133, 135 and 132 of 2010 respectively of the court of learned Munsiff, Punalur. Respondent No.3 (different persons in all the suits) filed the above suits against respondent Nos.1 and 2 (same in all the cases) for recovery of money allegedly due from them and certain properties, alleging that it belonged to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and is about to be sold were placed under attachment. Petitioner (common in all the cases) filed claim petitions as I.A.Nos.1587, 1586, 1588 and 1585 of 2010, respectively in the above suits claiming that he had purchased the property attached for valid consideration in the year, 1993 as per sale deed No.4325 of 1993 while the suits itself were filed only in the year 2010. Petitioner wanted an early hearing and disposal of the claim petitions but, O.P(C).No.562, 563, 564 and 565 of 2010 : 2 : learned Munsiff vide Ext.P5, order posted the claim petitions along with the suits observing that evidence has to be taken on the claim petitions. Ext.P5, order is under challenge in these petitions. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the attachment before judgment itself cannot stand in the light of decision of the Division Bench in Rajan Vs. Jayashree Nayar (2010(1) KLT 142) since there was nothing to be attached from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the reason that the property had been sold to the petitioner as per document No.4325 of 1993 years before institution of the suit. According to the learned counsel, in the circumstances it was not even necessary to record evidence on the claim petitions. It is not necessary for me in these proceedings to go into that contention urged by learned counsel. That is a matter learned Munsiff has to decide when the claim petitions are taken up for disposal. I leave that question for the decision of the learned Munsiff. 3. But, I do not think that it is necessary that petitioner/claim petitioner has to wait until disposal of the suit for adjudication of his claim over the property attached. For, evidence if any required to be let in, in the claim petitions has nothing to do with the evidence to be let in, in the suits between respondent Nos.1 to 3. Hence there is no justification in delaying O.P(C).No.562, 563, 564 and 565 of 2010 : 3 : disposal of the claim petitions. Claim petitions are to be disposed of as early as possible. But, if the suits also can be disposed of without further delay it is open to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suits as well along with the claim petitions. But, disposal of the claim petitions cannot be kept pending. Resultantly these petitions are allowed in the following lines: (i) Ext.P5, order in these cases are set aside. (ii) Learned Munsiff is directed to dispose of the claim petitions as early as possible, as provided under law after hearing parties to it and after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the question relevant for adjudication of the claim petitions. I also make it clear that if early disposal of suits is possible it is open to the learned Munsiff to dispose of the suits as well as claim petitions simultaneously but, the disposal of claim petitions shall not be delayed, on any account. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-