Satheesh Kumar.N., vs Dinil.C.K.,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 29, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1694591

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1694591
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Oct 29, 2021
Case Number: FAO/71/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Satheesh Kumar.N.,

Respondent

Dinil.C.K.,

Excerpt

.....koodathil veedu, kallooppara village, kallooppara p.o., pathanamthitta district, pin-689 583. 5 manu.v., aged 32 years, s/o.vidhyadharan, valiyaparampil vadakkethil veedu, vettiyar village, arunoottimangalam p.o., alappuzha district, pin-690 110. 6 buinukumar, aged 42 years, s/o.ramachandran pillai, kailasam veedu, erathu village, choorakkodu p.o., pathanamthitta district, pin-691 551. 7 sreejith g.pillai, aged 37 years, s/o.gopalakrishna pillai, muttathutharayil veedu, kattachira, bharanikkavu village, pallickal p.o., alappuzha district, pin-690 503. this first appeal from orders having come up for admission on 29.10.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentthe appeal came up for admission today. it is against the order of attachment which was made absolute after hearing both the parties atthe trial stage, i.e. under rule 5 of orderxxxviii c.p.c. no security was furnished. the suit is one for recovery of money and attachment was made absolute finding that the apprehension is well placed. no other property available with the defendant was brought to the notice of the court so as to satisfy the decree that may be passed. hence, it appears that theorder of attachment deserves no interference.nothing was brought to the notice of this court so as to admit the appeal on file. hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. sd/- p.somarajan judge spv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.07.2021 IN IA 1/2021 IN OS 7/2021 OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT: SATHEESH KUMAR.N., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.NANU PILLAI, USHA VILLA, MUNDAPPALLY, PERINGADU VILLAGE, PERINGADU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 523. BY ADVS. ADITHYA RAJEEV GIRISH KUMAR M S RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: 1 DINIL.C.K., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, CHARUVILAPUTHEN VEEDU, VELLINALLOOR VILLAGE, KARINGANNOOR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-691 516. 2 RATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.RAJAN NAIR, PULICKAL KIZHAKKEDATHU VEEDU, 3 DINESHKUMAR, S/O.BALAN NAIR, KANNAMOOTTIL VEEDU, 4 PRASOBH M.NAIR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.K.P.MOHANAN, KOODATHIL VEEDU, KALLOOPPARA VILLAGE, KALLOOPPARA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 583. 5 MANU.V., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VIDHYADHARAN, VALIYAPARAMPIL VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, VETTIYAR VILLAGE, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 110. 6 BUINUKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, KAILASAM VEEDU, ERATHU VILLAGE, CHOORAKKODU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 551. 7 SREEJITH G.PILLAI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MUTTATHUTHARAYIL VEEDU, KATTACHIRA, BHARANIKKAVU VILLAGE, PALLICKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690 503. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The appeal came up for admission today. It is against the order of attachment which was made absolute after hearing both the parties at

the trial stage, i.e. under Rule 5 of Order

XXXVIII C.P.C. No security was furnished. The suit is one for recovery of money and attachment was made absolute finding that the apprehension is well placed. No other property available with the defendant was brought to the notice of the court so as to satisfy the decree that may be passed. Hence, it appears that the

order of attachment deserves no interference.

Nothing was brought to the notice of this Court so as to admit the appeal on file. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Satheesh Kumar.N., vs Dinil.C.K., Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan