AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—Under challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Sub Court, Ernakulam rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to attach the property belonging to the respondents during the pendency of the suit. The suit was filed by the petitioner who is the brother of the respondents for declaration that the documents including the deed of cancellation of power of attorneys executed by the respondents are null and void and the power of attorneys are still in force and also for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,24,000/-. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed an I.A. for attachment of Plaint-A schedule property before judgment based on the allegation that the respondents are trying to alienate the property and to defeat the execution of the decree that may be passed in favour of the petitioner. The learned sub judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the application by the impugned order.
Arguments have been heard.
The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to a decision of this Court in Haji P.V. Pareed Master Vs. T.C. Antony, . The said decision was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the respondents had not given any statement before the court that they had no intention to alienate the property.
During the course of the argument, I put a specific query to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the respondents have any intention to dispose of the property during the pendency of the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have no intention to dispose of the property.
Another decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the decision of the Apex Court in Rajendran and Others Vs. Shankar Sundaram and Others, . This decision was cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out that while considering a petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 5, the court shall not go into the correctness of the contentions raised by the petitioner. In this case, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned sub judge while passing the impugned order has made some observations in paragraph-13 of the impugned order which would go against him.
I see some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was unnecessary for the sub judge to go into the merits of the case while disposing of the petition for attachment. However, on a totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that there is no demonstrable reason calling for an interference with the impugned order in exercise of the powers under Article 227. In the result, I decline jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear that the trial court shall dispose of the original suit untrammelled by any of the observations contained in the impugned order.
Parties shall appear before the Sub Court, Ernakulam on the next date of posting. Parties may seek indulgence of the trial court for an early disposal.
This Original Petition is disposed of as above.