Allowed

E.K.Prakasan v. Muthulangayil Kunhabdulla

Kerala HC5 Jun 2008WP(C)/10822/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the Sub Court's order dismissing a petition for attachment before judgment. The Court directed the respondent to furnish security within one month, with adjacent property attached conditionally for 30 days.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P3 order quashed; respondent directed to furnish security for Rs. 98,40,000/- within one month; conditional attachment for 30 days.

E.K.Prakasan Vs Muthulangayil Kunhabdulla — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶4

WP(C).No. 10822 of 2008(L) -------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.3.2008 IN IA 1732/07 IN OS.71/2007 of SUB COURT, KOYILANDY

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

-----------E.K.PRAKASAN, S/O.APPUKUTTY, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, ERAVATTUR AMSOM, KIZHINHANYAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENT: ------------MUTHULANGAYIL KUNHABDULLA, S/O.MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT PARAKKANDY HOUSE, POST PERAMBRA, MENHANNYAM AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

APPENDIX

¶11

Exhibit-P1:- True copy of plaint in O.S. No.71/2007 filed by the petitioner before the Sub Court, Koyilandy.

¶12

Exhibit-P2:- True copy of written statement dated 25.2.2008 in O.S.No.71/2001 filed by the respondent before the Sub Court, Koyilandy.

¶13

Exhibit-P3:- True copy of order dated 11.3.2008 in I.A. No.1732/2007 in O.S.No.71/2007 passed by the Sub Court, Koyilandy.

¶14

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶15

W.P.(C).No. 10822 of 2008 ------------------------------------------

¶16

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2008

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent the defendant in O.S. 71 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Koyilandy. In the suit, IA 1732 of 2007 was filed for an order of attachment before judgment under Rule 5 of Order XXXVIII of Code of Civil Procedure. The case of the petitioner is that respondent is to be directed to furnish security to satisfy the plaint claim of Rs.98,40,000/- and on failure, property is to be attached. Under Ext.P3 order the learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India. When the petition was admitted on 31.3.2008, an order was issued directing respondent not to alienate the property till the next posting date. The order was extended on the next posting day.

¶19

Respondent appeared through learned senior counsel Advocate S.V. Balakrishna Iyer. Learned senior counsel submitted that respondent has no objection to

¶20

WPC 10822/08 2

¶21

pass an order of attachment of the property as sought for in IA 1732 of 2007 on the failure to furnish security. On that submission, Ext.P3 order is quashed. The respondent/defendant is directed to furnish security for Rs.98,40,000/- before Sub Court, Koyilandy within one month from today and on failure to furnish security there would be an order of attachment of the property as sought for in IA 1732 of 2007 till disposal of the suit. There would be an order of conditional attachment, which will be in force for 30 days from today or till security is furnished. Petitioner is at liberty to approach Sub Court, Koyilandy to effect the order of attachment. It is made clear that if any alienation is made from 4.00 pm. on 5.6.2008, it will be subject to the order of attachment.

¶22

M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE

¶23

Okb/-

E.K.Prakasan v. Muthulangayil Kunhabdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.K.Prakasan v. Muthulangayil Kunhabdulla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Midas Pre-Cured Treads (P) Ltd., Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corpn.

Manomohan Vs Viswanathan

Sri.M.J.Varghese & Another Vs Dileep Kumar & Another

K.I.Baby Vs State of Kerala

Shibina Vs Easa Kunju

M/S.Four Square Estates Pvt.Ltd Vs Reality Projects and Entertainments P.Lt