The Writ Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(1) To call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P4 and quash the same.

(2) Grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.112/08 on the file of the Sub Court, Nedumangadu. Suit was one for money based on a promissory note. Respondent is the defendant in the suit. Ext.P1 is the copy of the plaint. With the suit, the plaintiff moved an application for attachment before judgment of an immovable property belonging to the defendant. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application moved under Order 38 Rule 5 and Section 151 of the C.P.C. for interim attachment before judgment. In that application,an interim order of attachment was passed by the learned Sub Judge. On appearance of the defendant and after considering the objections raised, attachment was made absolute. Ext.P3 is copy of the order passed by the learned Sub Judge making the interim attachment order absolute. The defendant preferred an appeal before the District Court, Trivandrum impeaching the correctness of Ext.P3 order. The learned District Judge, after hearing both sides, passed Ext.P4 judgment reversing Ext.P3 order and remitting the application for attachment for fresh disposal within the time limit fixed. The Writ Petition is filed challenging the propriety and correctness of Ext.P4 judgment invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Though notice was served, the respondent has not entered appearance.

4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned District Judge went wrong in reversing Ext.P3 order of the Sub Judge making the interim attachment order absolute, and the reasons set out for interfering with that order and remitting the application for fresh consideration in Ext.P4 judgment, according to the learned counsel, are unsustainable under law and facts. The direction given in Ext.P4 judgment as to how the enquiry on the application for attachment has to be proceeded afresh on remission is taken serious exception by the counsel contending that genuineness of the agreement of sale and its legal validity are not the decisive factors in appreciating whether a prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff to have an order of attachment of the property of the defendant to secure the decree most likely to be passed in the suit in his favour. His application for attachment deserves to be considered and appreciated with reference to the satisfaction of the conditions necessary for an attachment before judgment as covered by Rule 5 of Order 38 C.P.C., and not on the legal effect of an agreement of sale executed by the plaintiff over his property which is set up to resist the attachment, submits the counsel.

5. The defendant resisting the application for attachment has contended that the plaintiff is a moneylender and pursuant to a loan availed from him furnishing blank signed cheques and blank stamp papers she had to enter into an agreement of sale over her property with one Jayakumari who was introduced by the plaintiff to clear off her liability under the loan. The above said Jayakumari has instituted a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement of sale before the Sub Court, Trivandrum in which she volunteered before the court to execute the sale deed receiving the balance sale consideration. The court fixed a time limit for execution of the sale deed. Pursuant to that order of the court, according to the defendant, colluding with the above said Jayakumari, the present plaintiff has instituted the suit on a forged instrument and moved for attachment of her property. She further contended that she has no intention to sell the property other than to the said Jayakumari with whom she had entered into the agreement of sale before the attachment was ordered by