JUDGMENT :

Petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.308/2002 of the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order, which lifted an attachment over the property of the respondents/defendants herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, an attachment can be lifted only in circumstances culled out in Order XXXVIII, Rule 9, as also, Order XXI, Rule 55. In the instant case, the attachment is seen lifted vide Ext.P2 order not on any of the circumstances as referred to in the above said provisions and hence Ext.P2 order is bad in law, is the submission made. Learned counsel has also canvassed a contention that no notice was served on the petitioner in the proceedings, which lead to Ext.P2.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, Ext.P1 decree was passed against the respondents/defendants on 11.06.2003, the execution of which has become barred by the law of limitation, upon expiry of 12 years. It is thereafter that, the respondents/defendants filed application before the learned Sub Judge to lift the attachment, which was allowed vide Ext.P2 order. Accord