IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 203 of 2010()
1. A.V.JOSE,S/O.LATE A.J.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JANARDHANAN,S/O.KANDAMPILLY KUMARAN,
... Respondent
2. SHEELA JANARDHANAN,W/O.KANDAMPILLY
For Petitioner :SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :01/02/2011
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
F.A.O. 203 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
DATED THIS, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
The plaintiff in a suit for money is before us. He obtained an order of
attachment before judgment on I.A. 885 of 2009. That order dated
21.3.2009 was reviewed by the court below by order on I.A. 2947 of 2009
on 19.11.2009. Thereafter, the court below took up the application for
attachment before judgment and heard the parties on the basis of affidavits
on record. The plea of the defendant that they do not intend to alienate the
property weighed with the court below and ultimately dismissed the
application for attachment before judgment. Obviously, in the light of the
defendants’ assertion that they do not intend to sell the property, the court
below was persuaded to take the view that there is no ground referable to
Rule 38(1) to further proceed with the application for attachment before
judgment. We do not go into the controversy as to whether such an order is
an appealable one. Learned counsel for the appellant says that the
impugned order amounts to discharging an order of attachment earlier
imposed.
FAO 203/2010 2
2. Learned senior counsel for the defendants submits that after the
earlier review order as noticed above, the impugned order is one passed
afresh and it will not be an appealable order within the format of Order 43
Rule 1(q). We record this submission; but deem it unnecessary for us to
answer that question since even if we permit this appeal to be converted as
a revision, it would not be heard by a larger quorum.
3. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we dispose of this appeal without
interfering with the impugned order; however directing that the court below
will make an endeavour to expedite the final disposal of the suit after trial,
having regard to the fact that this is a suit for money.
Appeal ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
(JUDGE)
P.S. GOPINATHAN,
(JUDGE)
knc/-