High Court Kerala High Court

Joy Francis Alias T.P.Joy vs P.K.Seyd on 7 January, 2008

Kerala High Court
Joy Francis Alias T.P.Joy vs P.K.Seyd on 7 January, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 632 of 2008(A)


1. JOY FRANCIS ALIAS T.P.JOY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.K.SEYD, S/O.ABOOBACKER,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :07/01/2008

 O R D E R
                              M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                              --------------------------
                           W.P.(C). NO. 632 OF 2008
                                ---------------------
                   Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008

                               J U D G M E N T

This writ petition is preferred against the order passed by the

Subordinate Judge, Palakkad, whereby it has lifted the order of attachment

on deposit of Rs. 3,15,000/-. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the

court has not ordered to furnish security for future interest and cost. The

suit inclusive of interest up to the date of institution of the suit comes only

to Rs.2,89,000/-. The court below has directed the party to furnish security

for Rs.3,15,000/- and it is only on deposit of that amount the attachment

has been lifted. At the stage of interim attachment, the court is mainly

concerned with the claim in the suit and the court cannot decide whether it

is going to award future interest at the rate of 12% or that the party is

entitled to the full cost etc. The import of order XXXVIII Rule 5 is to give a

reasonable security to the plaintiff, who instituted the suit, so that he is not

deprived of the main usufructs of the decree, which he is going to obtain

subsequently. I think the court below has approached the subject only in

the correct perspective and therefore the order does not suffer from any

infirmity.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps