IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 27974 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.207/2004 of MUN-MAGI COURT, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- A.ASUMA BEEVI, D/O.AMINA UMMA, ETTIPPANA PUTHEN VEEDU, VELLARI, KAITHODU, NILAMEL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT: --------------- R.RAJENDRAN PILLAI, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, MAHESWARI BHAVAN, KIZHAKKENELA, PARIPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27974 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to lift the order of attachment in respect of property extending 12 ares in Block No.40 in R.S.No.190/12 in Paripally Village in Kollam District. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to vary the order of attachment by limiting the order of attachment to a smaller portion of the property comprising 12 ares in Block No.40 in R.S.No.190/12 in Paripally Village which is sufficient to satisfy the amount claimed in Exhibit P1. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the learned Munsiff-Magistrate, Paravoor to dispose of O.S.No.207/2004 within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.207 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Paravur, Kollam. Suit is one for money based on an agreement, and the respondent is the plaintiff. With the suit respondent/plaintiff applied for interim order of attachment of immovable property belonging to the petitioner/defendant to secure the plaint claim. That application for interim attachment was allowed by the court. W.P.(C).No.27974 of 2009 - O 2 Petitioner/defendant depositing a sum of Rs.97,100/- before the court to satisfy the plaint claim sought for lifting that attachment. Learned Munsiff after hearing both sides, declined the request of the petitioner holding that after long lapse of time from the date of institution of the suit plaint claim with interest would come to more than Rs.1,50,000/-. In other words, the deposit made by the petitioner/defendant was found to be insufficient to satisfy the plaint claim raised in the suit. Ext.P7 is the copy of that order. Propriety and correctness of Ext.P7 order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented I find no notice to the respondent is necessary and it is dispensed with. 4. Suit for money instituted in the year 2004 still awaits adjudication and disposal by the court below. An order of attachment passed in the suit over an immovable property of the petitioner/defendant still continues in view of the nondisposal of the suit on merits. In the given facts, I find no impropriety in the W.P.(C).No.27974 of 2009 - O 3 order of the court below declining to lift the attachment where the amount tendered was insufficient. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the delay occurred in view of collection of a report from the forensic expert to whom the agreement had been sent over since its authenticity was challenged by the defendant. I am not going to the merits of the order challenged in the writ petition. In case the report has not been received so far the court below shall take appropriate steps to get the report without further delay. I direct the court below to give the suit top priority in hearing and dispose it, as expeditiously as possible, after providing reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence in respect of their respective case and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the report. In case such report has already been received, then the court shall include the case in the special list and dispose it, expeditiously. Subject to the above directions, writ petition is closed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-