IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2537 of 2009(B)
1. SOFTLUTION WEB TECHNOLOGIS PVT.LTD.141
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MANGATH DEVADASAN, GEETHANJALI,
... Respondent
2. ADA SOFTWARE AND SERVICES PVT.LTD,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.L.MOHANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.2537 OF 2009
--------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March 2010
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs.
i) Issue an order quashing an setting aside
Ext.P4 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable.
ii) Hold that the proceedings initiated in E.A
No.57/09 in E.P No.172/08 in O.S No.547/03 of the Principal
Sub Court – I Exn, Thiruvananthapuram against the
petitioner evidenced by Ext.P4 is arbitrary, illegal and
unsustainable.
iii) Hold that the petitioner’s immovable
properties are not liable to be attached in execution of the
decree in O.S No.547/03 of the Principal Sub Court – I Exn,
Thiruvananthapuram.
iv) To issue such other writ, orders and
directions as are deem fit in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
2. Petitioner is a registered company. Ext.P4 order
passed by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram directing
attachment of the movable properties belonging to the petitioner
company is impeached in the writ petition contending that the
petitioner was not a party to the decree executed by the court.
Without giving him an opportunity, movable properties belonging
to the petitioner company were ordered to be attached to satisfy
the decree passed is the grievance canvassed by the petitioner
company.
W.P.(C) No.2537 OF 2009 Page numbers
3. Notice given the 1st respondent has entered
appearance through counsel. I heard the counsel on both sides. It
is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that showing
the name of the petitioner company as the care of address for the
defendant in the suit, a decree had been obtained by the 1st
respondent/plaintiff for realisation of money, and later, in the
execution proceedings, an order of attachment had been obtained
as against the property belonging to the petitioner company though
there was no decree against that company. Petitioner company
should be given an opportunity to impeach the attachment order so
passed by the court and till then the order of attachment has to be
kept in abeyance is the submission of the counsel. On the other
hand, inviting my attention to the exhibits produced with the
counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent
submitted that the case canvassed by the petitioner company that it
has distinct identity from the defendant company is unworthy of any
merit. The defendant company is one among the group of
companies with the present petitioner company, according to the
counsel. Before instituting the suit, a notice was issued to the
defendant and also to the petitioner company and further in the suit
as well the defendant was shown under the care of the present
petitioner company. No challenge was raised in the written
statement disputing the correctness of the address of the defendant
company as shown in the plaint. After the decree was passed, an
W.P.(C) No.2537 OF 2009 Page numbers
attachment order passed by the court to avoid the liability the writ
petition has been filed is the submission of the learned counsel for
the 1st respondent/decree holder.
3. Having regard to the submissions made and taking
note of the exhibits produced by both sides, I find, the dispute
involved has to be examined not by this court but by the execution
court. Petitioner company could have very well approached the
execution court and raised its objections whatever be the grounds in
its favour against the attachment order. This court in exercise of its
writ jurisdiction cannot go into the disputed facts relating to the
attachment ordered by the court. After admitting the writ petition,
Ext.P4 order of attachment has been ordered to be kept in
abeyance, which is stated to be still in force. The order so passed
by the court shall continue to remain in force for a period of one
month more. The petitioner company can approach the court below
and raise whatever objection it has against Ext.P4 order of
attachment. The court below shall pass appropriate orders after
considering the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner company
as expeditiously as possible. Subject to the above observations, the
writ petition is closed.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P. A TO JUDGE
vdv