IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27912 of 2010(O)
1. KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HAJA RAHMAN , AGED 46 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.M.A.ZOHRA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :08/09/2010
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
W.P(C) No. 27912 of 2010
====================================
Dated this the 08th day of September, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Defendant No.1 in O.S. No.987 of 2010 of the court of
learned Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram is the
petitioner before me challenging Ext.P6, communication directing
the Amin of that court to place the immovable properties
mentioned therein under conditional attachment. In the
meantime petitioner and other contesting defendants have been
called upon to show cause why they shall not furnish security for
the sum of Rs.1,84,50,000/-. It is contended by learned counsel
for petitioner that the order leading to Ext.P6, communication is
illegal since the suit is merely for specific performance of an
agreement for sale. There is no alternative prayer for refund of
advance money (which is only Rs.5 lakhs) and under no stretch of
imagination court below could ask petitioner and other
contesting defendants to furnish security for Rs.1,84,50,000/-
which according to respondent No.1-plaintiff is the total
consideration payable as per the agreement for sale.
W.P(C) No.27912 of 2010
-: 2 :-
2. As it is, there is only a conditional attachment with
direction to the petitioner and other contesting defendants to
show cause against furnishing security. It is open to the
petitioner and other contesting defendants to show cause why
they shall not furnish security and if at all there is a final order
against them under Rule 6 of Order XXXVIII of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short, “the Code”) that order is appealable under
order XLIII Rule 1(q) of that Code. Since statutory remedies are
available to the petitioner there is no reason why this Court
should interfere with the impugned order at this stage.
Without prejudice to the statutory remedies available to the
petitioner and other contesting defendants as stated above, Writ
Petition is closed.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv