Priyanka.A vs Ganga Gopan
2021 Latest Caselaw 225 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                   PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

    TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

                          OP(C).No.1424 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1/2020 IN OS 32/2020 DATED 24-08-2020 OF
                     SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA

                                    -----


PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

              PRIYANKA.A
              AGED 26 YEARS
              D/O. ANILA.B, BHASURA BHAVANAM, GOVINDAMUTTOM P.O.,
              KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,
              ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690 527

              BY ADVS.
              SHRI.BIJU ANTONY ALOOR
              SRI.K.P.PRASANTH
              SHRI.SHAFIN AHAMMED
              SRI.VISHNU DILEEP
              SMT.ARCHANA SURESH
              SMT.T.S.KRISHNENDU

RESPONDENT:

              GANGA GOPAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
              W/O. GOPAN, MARUTHANATTU, CHERAVALLY,
              KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
              PIN-690 502

              R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
              R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.A.R.DILEEP
              R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
              R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.MANU SRINATH
              R1   BY   ADV.   SRI.RAJAN G. GEORGE

     THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                  SATHISH NINAN, J.
        ==================
               O.P.(C) No.1424 of 2020
        ==================
        Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021

                       JUDGMENT

The dismissal of an application for attachment

before judgment of the immovable property of the defendant, is under challenge in this original

petition by the plaintiff.

2. Heard Sri.B.A.Aloor, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.A.R.Dileep, learned counsel for

the respondent.

3. The suit is one for recovery of money. The

plaint claim is for an amount of `33,55,700/-. To

substantiate the plaint claim, the plaintiff has produced cheques, dishonour memos and agreements.

The finding of the trial court that there is no

prima facie material in support of the plaint claim

is not correct.

4. The plaintiff has averred in the affidavit

filed in support of the attachment application

that, with an intent to defeat the decree that may

be passed in the suit, the defendant is attempting O.P.(C) No.1424 of 2020

to alienate the property. It has been stated that

the plaintiff got the said information through a

real-estate broker. Before filing a suit for money

and especially when the plaint claim is so huge, it

is only natural that before expending huge amounts

towards court fee, the plaintiff would make

necessary enquiries regarding the assets of the

proposed defendant. In the course of such enquiry

it is only probable that the plaintiff would have

come to know about the attempt of the defendant to

sell away properties to defeat the plaint claim. I

am unable to agree with the view taken by the trial

court that the apprehension of alienation is not

proved since the nature of the enquiry and the

materials on which the plaintiff formed an opinion

that the defendant is making arrangements to

dispose of the property is not stated in the

affidavit. On the totality of the facts, I am of

the opinion that it is only proper that the plaint

claim be adequately secured.

5. At the time of admission of this Original

Petition, on 24.09.2020, this Court had, while O.P.(C) No.1424 of 2020

issuing notice to the respondent-defendant

restrained the defendant from alienating the

property scheduled to the attachment application

IA. 1/2020. It would be only just that the said

order continues till the disposal of the suit, and

it is ordered accordingly. The trial court shall

expedite the suit and shall make every endeavour to

have the same tried and disposed of as

expeditiously as possible.

The original petition is allowed as above.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy// P.S. to Judge OP(C).No.1424 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 3.05.2019 ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIABILITY OF RS.9,45,000/- (NINE LAKH AND FORTY FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES ONLY)

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 6.09.2019 ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIABILITY OF RS.11,45,000/- (ELEVEN LAKH AND FORTY FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES ONLY)

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8.11.2019 ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIABILITY OF RS.14,55,000/- (FOURTEEN LAKH AND FIFTY FIVE THOUSAND RUPEES ONLY)

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NUMBER 684368 DRAWN ON CANARA BANK KAYAMKULAM BRANCH PAYABLE ON 30.06.2020

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NUMBER 684369 DRAWN ON CANARA BANK KAYAMKULAM BRANCH PAYABLE ON 30.06.2020

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NUMBER 684370 DRAWN ON CANARA BANK KAYAMKULAM BRANCH PAYABLE ON 30.06.2020

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHEQUE NUMBER 684371 DRAWN ON CANARA BANK KAYAMKULAM BRANCH PAYABLE ON 30.06.2020

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.321 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, MAVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 1 OF 2020 IN OS NO.32 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, MAVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE DEFENDANT AGAINST IA NO. 1 OF 2020 IN OS NO.32 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, MAVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.09.2020 IN IA NO. 1 OF 2020 IN OS NO.32 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF THE SUB JUDGE, MAVELIKKARA

-----