AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Notice to respondents is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to pass in this Writ Petition.
Petitioner filed a suit for money against respondents and filed I.A. No. 2692 of 2010 to attach the immovable property belonging to the respondents. There was a conditional attachment of property which was later lifted on the objection raised by the respondents. Challenging that order, petitioner preferred a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the learned District Judge, Thrissur. That appeal was returned for the reason that "lower court order produced is not a speaking one". The order returning appeal memorandum is under challenge in this Writ Petition. Learned Counsel states that not only that the appeal ought to have admitted but that order of the learned Additional Sub Judge was not a speaking order was by itself a ground to allow the appeal and remand the matter to the trial court to pass appropriate orders.
I am not going into the question whether for the reason stated by the learned Counsel the appeal is liable to be allowed. That is a matter which the learned District Judge has to decide. But I was not able to find any provision of law which enabled return of memorandum of appeal for the reason that the order under challenge is not a speaking order. Clearly, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
Resultantly this Writ Petition is allowed in the following lines:
i. The order of learned District Judge returning memorandum of appeal is set aside.
ii. Learned District Judge is directed to consider the appeal on merit and decide whether the appeal is to be admitted and notice to respondents is to issued.
iii. Petitioner or counsel shall appear in the court of learned District Judge, Thrissur on 19.08.2010.