IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 320 of 2010() --------------------- IA.1654/2010 IN O.S.NO.278/2010 OF SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ---------------------------------------------------- KUNHIMON, S/O.MATHILAKATHVEETTIL IBRAHIM, MOOTHEDATHARA DESOM, THANNIAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. LEELA, W/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALORE TALUK. 2. PRABHADHAKUSUMAM, D/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALORE TALUK. 3. JAYASOONAM, D/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALORE TALUK. 4. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALORE TALUK. 5. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O.MULLASSERIL RAJAKUMARAN, METHALA VILLAGE, DESOM, KODUNGALORE TALUK. ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 TO 5 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- C.R.P.No.320 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 O R D E R The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.278 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. The suit was filed before the vacation court, namely, District Court, Thrissur. The defendants had filed a caveat before the vacation court. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.1654 of 2010 for attachment before judgment. Before the vacation court, the respondents made an undertaking that they will not alienate the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. The vacation court closed the I.A., as per the order dated 10th May 2010, recording the undertaking which is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition filed by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the vacation court should not have passed final order in an interlocutory application. It is well settled that the vacation court can pass only ad interim orders. C.R.P.No.320 of 2010 2 Accordingly, the order impugned is treated as an ad interim order. The trial court shall pass final orders in the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiff for attachment before judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both parties. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl