1. These two original petitions, both filed under Article 227 of the Constitution are by the rival side in appending suit on the file of the Sub Court. Ernakulam.

2. O.P. (C) No.312/11 has been filed by the plaintiffs in the suit, three in number, against Ext.P6 order passed by the learned Sub Judge disallowing the application moved by them for interim attachment of an immovable property belonging to the defendants recording the averment in the affidavit filed by the 5th defendant who represented the 1st defendant company also as its Managing Director that such property will not be alienated. O.P. (C) No.429/12 has been filed by the defendants against the common order passed by the learned Sub Judge (Ext.P6 in the OP) on two applications moved by the plaintiffs directing for issue of summons to some bank managers to appear and produce the loan documents of the defendants, and from the authority concerned to produce an application purported to have been moved by the 5th defendant to remove his name from the list of willful defaulters. The learned Sub Judge after hearing the applications of the plaintiffs negativing the objections of the defendants, allowed them under a common order and directed issue of summons for production of the documents. Challenge in the above original petition is against that order.

3. Though the orders challenged in the two original petitions arise from separate petitions canvassing different reliefs as they emanate from the suit between the same parties, after hearing the counsel on both sides, they are disposed of under this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, exhibits produced, to the extent possible, are referred to with reference and as marked in O.P.(C) No.312/11, except where it is so found necessary to refer to the exhibits separately produced in the other original petition.

4. Suit is one for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- alleged to have been collected by the defendants from the plaintiffs promising to transfer dealership of ‘Tata Motors” to them, but, which was not honoured. Ext.P1 in O.P. (C) No.429/12 is copy of the plaint. Though some other transactions as to handing over of the title deeds of the plaintiffs over an immovable property to secure loans for purchase of a BMW car from the defendants are also imputed of, for the purpose of disposal of these two original petitions, it is unnecessary to dilate on those aspects with reference to the contentions raised thereto by the defendants to resist the suit claim. Suffice to state that the defendants in their joint written statement (Ext.P2 in the above OP) have admitted the receipt of the sum of Rs.1.5 crores from the plaintiffs, but, with a different version that it was provided on the basis of an offer made by the plaintiffs to have a joint venture with the 1st defendant company promising to arrange a capital of Rs.7.5crores. A sum of Rs.1.5 crores alone was later arranged, that too in instalments, according to the defendants. The defendants also raised a counter claim for a sum of Rs.5 crores on the allegation that the 5th defendant had been arrested by police at the instance of the plaintiffs on trumped up charges over the transactions imputed in the plaint and thereby he has suffered damage to the extent to the sum claimed.

5. Plaintiffs filed an application in the suit for interim attachment of an item of immovable property belonging to the defendants to secure the suit claim. Ext.P1 is copy of that application. To that application Ext.P2 counter affidavit was filed by the 5th defendant. An additional affidavit (Wxt.P3) was them filed by the plaintiffs, to which the 5th defendant filed Ext.P4 counter affidavit. Plaintiffs thereupon filed Ext.P5 reply affidavit. The learned Sub Judge, after considering the affidavits as above and hearing the counsel on both sides, passed Ext.P6 order disallowing the interim attachment claimed, but, ordering for recording the affidavit filed by the first plaintiff that