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