Regular First Appeal dismissed. Court held the appeal against lifting of property attachment order has no merit as the sale was established. Temporary injunction prayer was not addressed in the scope of this appeal; remedy lies in the suit. All pending interlocutory applications dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; all pending interlocutory applications 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 ANTONY DOMINIC &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/22ND MAGHA, 1937
RFA (MISC.).No. 91 of 2016 ()
APPELLANT(S)/1ST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
THOMAS V.KURIAN, S/O.KURIAN V THOMAS, AGED 45 YEARS PROPRIETOR, M/S.MEGAA MEDIA,
4TH FLOOR, NORTH PLAZA NEAR ERNAKULAM NORTH RAILWAY STATION, COCHIN-18.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER& RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5/DEFENDANTS:
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ABDULLA KUTTY.
MANAGING DIRECTOR CHOLAKKAPARAMBIL CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT NP/11/981A-10(OLD) 102/21(NEW) QUEENS COMPLEX OPP.GOVT.MODEL U.P.SCHOOL, NILAMBUR MALAPPURAM-679329.
DIRECTOR, CHOLAKKAPARAMBIL CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED MOOTHEDATH HOUSE, CHANDAKUNNU P.O. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679342.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL(MISCELLANEOUS) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & A.HARIPRASAD, JJ.
R.F.A.(Misc.) No.91 of 2016
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
Hariprasad, J.
This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ernakulam on I.A.No.6010 of 2012 in O.S.No.669 of 2012. The suit is one for recovery of money. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for attachment of property under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “CPC”). A conditional order of attachment was passed in his favour. Thereafter, the first respondent approached the court below with a petition under Order 38 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to lift the order of attachment. After hearing all the parties concerned, court below lifted the order of attachment finding that the first respondent had purchased the property much before the date of suit. It was also found that respondents 2 to 5 (defendants in the suit) had no title over the property at the time of attachment. Therefore, the court below found that the order of attachment should be vacated and it vacated the order accordingly. Aggrieved by the
2
RFA(Misc.) No.91/2016
order, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.
3
RFA(Misc.) No.91/2016
Appeal is devoid of any merit. It is dismissed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the lift of property attachment order deserves allowance.
Whether a temporary injunction against further alienation of the property can be granted in this appeal.
Whether the validity of the sale of the property needs to be adjudicated at this stage.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Thomas V.Kurian
Abdu Rahiman
Cholakkaparambil Chits Private Limited
Abedulla Kutty
Abdul Rahman
Abdul Rasheed Moothedath
Antony Dominic
A. Hariprasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
