LAWS(KER)-2018-7-946

BIJU MATHEW ABRAHAM Vs. GIE PLANTATIONS PVT LTD

Decided On July 05, 2018
Biju Mathew Abraham Appellant
V/S
Gie Plantations Pvt Ltd Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Original Suit No.228 of 2012 as well as the decree holder in Execution Petition No.219 of 2012 on the files of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The aforesaid Original Suit was filed by the appellant herein against the respondents/defendants herein, seeking a decree for realisation of an amount of Rs. 4,30,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum from the date of suit. The aforesaid claim was settled between the parties and a compromise decree was passed. The above Execution Petition was filed in execution of the compromise decree.

(2.) The appellant filed Execution Petition No.219 of 2012 against the judgment debtors and proceeded against the attached plaint 'C' schedule property to realise the decree amount. While so, several creditors of the partnership firm filed claim petitions in the said Execution Petition. In that circumstances, the appellant filed Execution Application No.302 of 2018 in Execution Petition No.219 of 2012 for attaching the property having an extent of 38.95 Ares, owned and possessed by the 2nd respondent herein, to realise the decree amount. The learned Sub Judge was pleased to grant an order dated 05.06.2018 attaching the above mentioned property of the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the said ex parte interim order, the 2nd respondent filed Execution Application No.334 of 2018 for lifting the attachment already granted against his property. The court below heard both Interlocutory Applications together and passed the impugned common order lifting the attachment made earlier and thereby, allowed Execution Application No.334 of 2018 and dismissed Execution Application No.302 of 2018. The legality and correctness of the findings, whereby the court below lifted the order of attachment passed earlier in favour of the appellant have come up for consideration in this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.