Partly allowed

S. Ajith Kumar v. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Kerala HC23 Oct 2013FAO/302/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that an appeal against an order of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC is not maintainable as it is not a final disposal. The appellant was permitted to withdraw the appeal to file a writ petition under Article 227, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

S. Ajith Kumar Vs Sree Gokulam Chits and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/1ST KARTHIKA, 1935

¶7

FAO.No. 302 of 2013 ()

¶8

IA NO.1660/2012 IN O.S.NO298/2012 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKARA

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/CR. PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:

¶10

S. AJITH KUMAR S/O.SUGATHAN, PUTHENVILA VEEDU, KATTADY P O POOYAPPALLY, KOTTARAKKARA

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

¶13

SREE GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD. NO-66, ARCOT ROAD, CHENNAI-600024 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, A M GOPALAN S/O.A M CHATHU, LIJISHA NO II, 2ND STREET TRUSTIPURAM, KODAMPAKKAM, CHENNAI-600024 NOW AT ERNAKULAM

¶14

R BY SHRI K. JAYAKUMAR (SR) AND SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶15

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶18

F.A.O.No. 302 of 2013

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶23

This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order passed in I.A. No.1660/2012 in O.S. No.298/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Kottarakkara. We find from the common order passed by the Sub Court that a conditional attachment has been ordered in I.A.No.1660/2012.

¶24

We heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Shri S. Sreekumar and Shri K. Jayakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, who raised an objection that the appeal may not be maintainable as the order passed is under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C.

¶25

It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Shri S. Sreekumar that the interim application has been finally disposed of, as is clear from the operative portion of the order.

¶26

After going through the order and after considering the findings on the said I.A. in para 49, we are also of the view that the only order passed is by way of conditional attachment and therefore it is not a final

¶27

FAO No.302/2013

¶28

-2-

¶29

disposal of the application and the appellant's remedy is to approach this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

At this stage, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant sought

¶31

permission to withdraw the appeal with permission to file a writ petition.

¶32

Permission granted and the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The Registry will return the certified copy of the order to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.

¶33

Issue photo copy of the judgment today itself.

¶34

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶35

(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶36

kav/

S. Ajith Kumar v. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ajith Kumar v. Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Rajan Vs K.P.Muhammed

Bharathi Karthikeyan Vs M.I Sheeja Mol

Chellamma Vs R.Janardhanan Pillai

Suo Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Lfa

The Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the Deputy Director, Lfa