HAMEED T ABDULLA Vs. KOYENCO AUTOS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two original petitions, both filed under Art.227 of the Constitution are by the rival side in a pending suit on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam.

(2.) OP (C) No. 312/11 has been filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, three in number, against Ext. P6 order passed by the learned Sub Judge disallowing the application moved by them for interim attachment of an immovable property belonging to the defendants recording the averment in the affidavit filed by the 5th defendant who represented the 1st defendant company also as its Managing Director that such property will not be alienated. OP (C) No. 429/12 has been filed by the defendants against the common order passed by the learned Sub Judge (Ext. P6 in the OP) on two applications moved by the plaintiffs directing for issue of summons to some bank managers to appear and produce the loan documents of the defendants, and from the authority concerned to produce an application purported to have been moved by the 5th defendant to remove his name from the list of wilful defaulters. The learned Sub Judge afterhearing the applications of the plaintiffs, negativing the objections of the defendants, allowed them under a common order and directed issue of summons for production of the documents. Challenge in the above original petition is against that order.

(3.) Though the orders challenged in the two original petitions arise from separate petitions canvassing different reliefs as they emanate from the suit between the same parties, after hearing the counsel on both sides, they are disposed of under this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, exhibits produced, to the extent possible, are referred to with reference and as marked in OP (C) No. 312/11, except where it is so found necessary to refer to the exhibits separately produced in the other original petition.