This first appeal against orders in O.S. 289 of 2012 concerning recovery of Rs. 7,10,000 and attachment before judgment was dismissed. The Court held that lifting attachment upon receipt of an F.D. receipt as security was not a ground for interference.
First appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/27TH PHALGUNA 1934
FAO.No. 40 of 2013 ()
APPELLANT(S):/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF
JALAJAMANI, W/O RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KUMBALATHU HOUSE, S.P.R.A. 36, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT:
RAJA GOPALAN NAIR, S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT KARTHIKA BHAVAN, SASTHAMKONAM WARD, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PUNALUR MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-032013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &
B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.
F.A.O. No. 40 OF 2013
Dated this the 18th day of March, 2013 J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J
There are three suits between the parties to this appeal. Now, we are concerned only with O.S.289 of 2012, the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs.7,10,000/- with future interest towards alleged damages. There was an order of attachment before judgment. The respondent/defendant produced before the court below an F.D. receipt for Rs.7,50,000/-. The court below received that as security and lifted the attachment. Though much is said about the controversy between the parties and the assertions and disputes which are essentially the subject matter of the other two suits, we find no ground to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal.
In the result, this appeal fails and it is dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE
ul/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court's order lifting attachment after receipt of a fixed deposit receipt as security in O.S. 289 of 2012 requires interference.
Jalamani, W/o Radhakrishnan
Raja Gopalan Nair
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
