Kerala High Court
Bhaskaran vs The Sub Registrar, North Paravur on 21 August, 2025
W.P.(C) No.16319 of 2025
- 1 -
2025:KER:63705
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 16319 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
BHASKARAN
AGED 81 YEARS
S/O.VELANDI, VALIYATHARA VEEDU, KADAKARA DESOM,
EZHIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
SRI.P.A.IBRAHIM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SUB REGISTRAR, NORTH PARAVUR
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KACHERI COMPOUND,
NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
2 THE TAHASILDAR [LR], PARAVUR TALUK
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE
VILLEGE OFFICE, EZHIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
4 M/S.SML FINANCE LIMITED
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT BETHANY COMPLEX,
THRISSUR ROAD, KUNNUMKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680503
W.P.(C) No.16319 of 2025
- 2 -
2025:KER:63705
BY ADVS.
SMT.K.B.REKHA
SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.16319 of 2025
- 3 -
2025:KER:63705
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the entry regarding an
attachment in the books of records of the registry. Such
entry is made on the basis of an attachment Order issued by
the Arbitrator in a proceeding between the 4 th respondent and
the petitioner.
2. It is the petitioner's case that the petitioner's
signature was forged and a loan was obtained from the 4 th
respondent by one Alibava Haneef. According to the
petitioner, he was not served with any notice in the
arbitration proceedings. The 4th respondent filed Execution
Petition for enforcement of the Award, however, the same was
dismissed, as evidenced from Ext.P4. Now, the petitioner
seeks to get rid of the attachment effected by the
Arbitrator. Petitioner relies on a bench decision of this
Court in Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S.
[2024 (6) KHC 238] to contend that an attachment communicated
- 4 -
2025:KER:63705
otherwise than through the Civil Court by the Arbitrator
himself, is illegal, and therefore, the same is liable to be
removed. To delete an illegal entry, it cannot be insisted
that the petitioner should approach the Arbitrator at the
first instance and the same has to be enforced through the
Civil Court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the
learned counsel for the 4th respondent, and also, the learned
Senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondent 1 to 3.
4. The issue involved in this Writ Petition is similar to
the issue, which has been considered by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.28034/2025, as per judgment dated 08.08.2025. The
following observations from that judgment is extracted here
below:
"6. Having bestowed my attention to the facts
attendant, this Court notice that there are a
series of cases, including the present one,
where attachments have been directed to be
communicated and entries made on the orders
- 5 -
2025:KER:63705
passed by the Arbitrator himself, without
recourse to the procedure envisaged in the
Code of Civil Procedure. As contended by the
learned Counsel for the petitioners, the
Division Bench in Saneesha (supra) held that
the same is illegal and has to be nullified.
It is made clear that what is illegal is not
the order granting attachment, but only the
direction to communicate the same to the Sub
Registry Office or the Village Office
concerned and to make an entry to that effect
in the records therein. It is the enforcement
part of the order of attachment, which alone
is liable to be made by recourse to the Code
of Civil Procedure; and there cannot be any
dispute, whatsoever, insofar as the
Arbitrator's power to pass an order of
attachment is concerned in terms of
Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act. This Court is of the
opinion that cases where an order of
attachment was enforced otherwise in
accordance with law, has to be dealt with
separately, in the context of lifting such an
attachment. As already held by the Division
Bench, the entries made pursuant to such
illegal enforcement of attachment orders are
liable to be nullified. If that be so, this
Court finds little force in the contention
- 6 -
2025:KER:63705
that such lifting of an attachment should
also necessarily be enforced through the
Civil Court. Section 89(5) of the
Registration Act stipulates that release of
any immovable property from attachment, can
be made only when a copy of the order is sent
to the Sub Registrar, as contemplated in the
Section. This Court is of the opinion that
the instant judgment, which being rendered,
can be treated as such an order/judgment and
production of a copy of this judgment before
the Sub Registry Office would amply serve the
requirements of Section 89(5) of the
Registration Act."
5. Having regard to the facts at hand, this Court is of the
opinion that the same course can be adopted.
6. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed
permitting the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment
before the 1st respondent/Sub Registrar, who, in turn, will
make an entry as envisaged under Section 89(5) of
Registration Act regarding lifting of attachment in the
records concerned. In view of the urgency espoused by the
- 7 -
2025:KER:63705
petitioner, the 1st respondent/Sub Registrar shall ensure that
the above referred act is done, as expeditiously as possible,
without any delay.
This Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Sd/-
C.JAYACHANDRAN, JUDGE
ww
- 8 -
2025:KER:63705
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16319/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
IN RESPECT OF 1.21 ARES OF PROPERTY IN
SY.NO.130/12/1/5 OF EZHIKKARA VILLEGE FOR
THE PERIOD 01/01/2001 TO 15-08-2020.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN E.P.NO.28/2022 IN ARC
NO.33/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, NORTH
PARAVUR.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A
NO.43/2017 IN ARBITRATION REFERENCE NO.
33/2017 OF THE SOLE ARBITRATOR DATED 16-
08-2017.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DOWNLOADED
FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE E-COURTS RELATING
TO E.P NO.28/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, NORTH
PARAVUR.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4 (a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED
26.12.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
ARBITRATOR.
EXHIBIT R4 (b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT
DATED 30.05.2025 MAINTAINED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
