P J ISAC Vs. APPSONS PHARMACEUTICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order in I. A. No. 3689/97 in O.P. (Indigent) No. 89/97 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam. The petitioner plaintiff before Court below is the appellant before us. He filed the suit as an indigent person for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,99,224.40 with interest from the defendants 2 and 3. He has also filed the above application under O.38 R.5 of CPC seeking an order of attachment before judgment The Court below after hearing both parties lifted the conditional attachment already made on furnishing security for 50% of the plaint amount by the 4th defendant within 15 days from the date of the order. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said order filed the present appeal.

(2.) When this appeal came up for hearing today, Sri. Mathew John, Advocate took notice on behalf of the respondents defendants. He submitted that the impugned order had been passed on the basis of a concession made by the counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. His case is that this appeal is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order had been passed on concession made by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, Advocate M.R. Parameswaran who appeared for the appellant disputed this position and placed reliance on the affidavit filed along with this appeal by the Advocate who appeared for the appellant before the Court below.

(3.) In view of the above rival contentions, it is essential for us to adjudicate this question. In this context, let us now examine what the court below observed in the impugned order as to the alleged concession. It said: