IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 21ST APRIL 2009 / 1ST VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).NO. 11272 OF 2009(O) ----------------------------------------- OS.80/2008 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- AJITH KUMAR,AGED 52, S/O.SAHADEVAN,MUNAMBAM KARA, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE,KOCHI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ RAJAN,S/O.VELU, THUDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MUNAMBAM KARA, KUCHUPPILLY VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADVOCATE SHRI P. VISWANATHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.11272 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 21st day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Respondent appears through counsel, Shri P. Viswanathan. Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner who is defendant in O.S. No.80 of 2008 of the Prl. Sub Court, North Parur is aggrieved by Ext.P7, order dated 17.10.2008 in I.A. No.3448 of 2008. Respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of suit and cost of the proceeding. Along with the suit he requested for attachment of the immovable property belonging to the petitioner as per I.A. No.655 of 2008. Pursuant to that application, immovable property of the petitioner was placed under a conditional attachment which was later made absolute. Thereafter petitioner filed I.A. No.3448 of 2008 under Order XXXVIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure requesting to remove the attachment, producing a Fixed Deposit receipt for Rs.1,25,000/-. Learned Sub Judge was not satisfied with that deposit, observed that security was not furnished within time and dismissed the application vide Ext.P7, order dated 17.10.2008. That order is under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has W.P(C) No.11272 of 2009 -: 2 :- entered into an agreement for sale of the attached property and the period stipulated in the agreement has already expired. He also submitted that if the attachment remains in force petitioner will be put to irreparable loss. Counsel for respondent submits that the amount deposited is not sufficient as it did not answer the plaint claim. 4. It has been held by this Court that even in execution, attachment of immovable property made before judgment can be removed by furnishing security. Hence respondent cannot contend that the deposit made by the petitioner is not within time. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the interest of the respondent can be secured by directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1,40,000/- and execute a bond in favour of the learned Sub Judge to the effect that in case the suit is decreed, respondent can realise the amount from the amount in deposit. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent made a request that the learned Sub Judge be directed to expedite the trial and disposal of the suit. That question does not arise in this proceeding. But it will be open to the respondent to make such a request before the learned Sub Judge. W.P(C) No.11272 of 2009 -: 3 :- Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following lines: (i) If the petitioner, apart from the amount already deposited by way of Fixed Deposit makes a further deposit of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) and executes a bond as aforesaid in favour of learned Prl.Sub Judge North Parur, learned Sub Judge will remove the attachment ordered over the immovable property. (ii) On such compliance Ex t.P7, order will stand set aside and the application allowed in favour of the petitioner. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== S.A. NO. OF 2001 =================== J U D G M E N T APRIL, 2009