High Court Kerala High Court

K.V.Ramanan vs Shahul Hameed on 23 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
K.V.Ramanan vs Shahul Hameed on 23 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP.No. 1268 of 2003()


1. K.V.RAMANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SHAHUL HAMEED, PAPPASWAMY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOHN BRITTO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :23/02/2010

 O R D E R
               S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
                   -------------------------------
                 C.R.P.NO.1268 OF 2003 ()
                 -----------------------------------
         Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010

                           O R D E R

The revision is directed against the order passed by the

learned Additional Munsiff, Alappuzha declining the request of

the decree holder for releasing the amount deposited by the

garnishee in the execution proceedings by allowing his cheque

application. The learned Munsiff dismissed that application

for the reason that an attachment order in respect of the

amount in deposit is in force by the orders passed by anther

competent civil curt. The cheque application was therefore

dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the attachment order passed by the other court in no way bar

the release of the amount deposited by the garnishee as the

attachment only prohibits or interdicts the judgment debtor

and does not apply to involuntary alienations by the orders of

the court. I find no merit in the submissions made. The court

is bound to honour the communication received from the

C.R.P.1268/03 2

competent civil court as to the attachment made over the

deposit in its custody. The release of the amount in the given

facts of the case, can be considered only subject to the

provisions as envisaged by law. There is no merit in the

challenge against the order impugned in the revision and it is

dismissed.

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE

prp

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

——————————-

C.R.P.NO.1268 OF 2003 ()

———————————–

O R D E R

23rd February, 2010