IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Ex.FA.No. 18 of 2010()
1. SWAMI ASARI, S/O. NATESAN ASSARI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT
... Respondent
2. CHANDRIKA, KINARUVETTIYA VILA,
3. SALINI.S. D/O. SYRANDHRI,
4. AMMU, D/O. SALINI (MINOR)
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU CHERUKARA
For Respondent :SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :27/05/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
& S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
---------------------------------------
Ex.F.A.No.18 of 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of May, 2010
JUDGMENT
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
The appellant filed a suit for recovery of
money against respondents 2 to 4. He obtained an
order of attachment in execution of that decree. The
1st respondent co-operative bank filed a claim petition
contending that it has a mortgage in its favour and is
a secured creditor and the attachment is to be lifted.
The court below, being satisfied of the existence of
the mortgage and the fact that the bank is a secured
creditor, lifted the attachment.
2. When this appeal was taken up on an
earlier occasion, we wanted the appellant to state
whether he would pay off the amounts due to the
bank so that the claim of the bank would get satisfied.
Even today, there is no offer to do so. He would stand
only to say that the property, after being put to sale in
the course of execution of the decree, the bank may
be directed to adjust the amount that may be
Ex.F.A.No.18 of 2010
:: 2 ::
generated from the sale, to satisfy the decree amount.
We are not satisfied.
3. There is no illegality or error of
jurisdiction in the impugned order. We also find that
the court below has considered the entire facts and
evidence in accordance with law.
We find no ground interfere with the
impugned order. Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge.