MOIDU Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner challenges the order in I. A. 403 of 1985 in O.S. 21 of 1986 of the Sub Court, Ottapalam. The respondent (Plaintiff) filed the petition under O.38 R.5 of the C.P C. for attachment of the amount lying with the Executive Engineer, (Kanhirapuzha Irrigation Project) to the credit of the revision petitioner till he furnished security for an amount of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Revision petitioner was directed to furnish security for Rs. 1,50,000/- to satisfy the plaint claim on or before 16-6-1986 and till then conditional attachment was ordered. It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that as per order in C.M.P. 9016 of 1986 Rs. 50,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner.

(2.) Contention of the respondent is that the order of the court below under O.38 R.6 is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this court. Counsel for the revision petitioner relying on 1982 KLT 294 f Rai Premchand & others v. P.K. Ahamed & Co.) contended that the impugned order is revisable. Counsel for the respondent submitted that in 1982 KLT 294 the learned Judge has not adverted to O.43 R.1(q) which envisages that an order under R.2 or R.3 or R.6 of O.38 is appealable.

(3.) In 1982 KLT 294 (Rai Premchand & others v. P. K. Ahamed & Co.) it is held as follows: