The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.21/2004 which is a suit for specific performance. There was an alternate prayer in the suit for return of advance amount. The suit was decreed for return of advance amount and the decree amount would come little over 8 lakhs. Execution of the decree was taken out. The petitioner approached this Court by way of appeal against the judgment and decree of trial court and this Court granted an interim order of stay of operation of the decree on condition that the petitioner furnishes security for the decree amount. 2. The petitioner says that he produced two documents of title before the court below as security. But the court below refused to accept the same. He had to again approach this Court. This Court, while disposing of the petition filed by the petitioner, directed the court below to issue a commission to assess the value of the property which was furnished as security.
O.P.(C) No.2505/2014 2 The petitioner says that he has filed an application for issuance of a commission which is pending even as on today. In the meanwhile, initial execution application filed by the decree holder for arrest and detention was dismissed. In the subsequent execution petition filed by the respondent i.e. Ext.P2, an order attaching the residential building and property of the petitioner was passed. The petitioner points out that the decree amount as per Ext.P2 is about 13 lakhs. The petitioner deposited Rs.18,00,000/- by four Fixed Deposit of Rs.4,50,000/- pledged to the Bank as could be seen from Exts.P4 and P5 and endorsement thereon as security and sought for lifting of attachment of the property.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of several postings, the application filed by the petitioner is not being considered and the petitioner is put to irreparable loss and injury. It is pointed out that the case now stands posted to 12.11.2014. The petitioner points out that there may be a direction to take up the matter on that day and dispose of it on merits and also to consider whether the security offered by the petitioner is O.P.(C) No.2505/2014 3 sufficient to lift the attachment.
4. The prayer seems to be just and reasonable. After having furnished security and after having filed a petition seeking to lift the attachment, it is a pity that the petitioner has to wait so long to get an order.
In the result, this petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the 1st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode to take up E.P.No.312/2010 in O.S.No.21/2004 on 12.11.2014 itself and dispose of the petition seeking lifting of the attachment considering whether the security offered by the petitioner is sufficient. Order on the petition may be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp