JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed assailing the order in IA No.1836/2018 in OS No.356/1999 (Ext P2) of the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor.

2. The concise case of the petitioner in the original petition is that, he was the defendant in OS No.356/1999 filed by the respondent, for a decree of money. The respondent had filed IA No.1887/1999 in the suit for an order of attachment before judgment. The said application was allowed and the petitioner’s property was attached before judgment. The suit was decreed on 28.1.2000 as per Ext P1. Even though the petitioner filed A.S No.115/2000 before the Court of the District Judge, North Paravur, the same was dismissed. Nonetheless, the respondent did not put Ext P1 decree to execution. After a lapse of 18 years, the petitioner filed IA No.1836/2018 to lift the order of attachment before judgment on the premise that the decree has become time barred. However, the court below, by the impugned Ext P2 order, dismissed IA No.1836/2018 holding that the order of attachment before judgment cannot be lifted as the petitioner had failed to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court below. Ext P2 order is erroneous and wrong.

Hence, the original petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Augustine M.A, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S Renjith, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext P2 order.

5. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, it is evident that OS No.356/1999 was decreed by Ext P1 as on 28.1.2000. IA No.1836/2018 was filed after 18 years to lift the order of attachment before judgment.

6. Undisputedly, the respondent has not filed an execution petition to execute the decree. Therefore, I am of the definite view that Ext P2 order declining to lift the order of attachment is erroneous and unsustainable in law because the decree itself has become time barred. Therefore, there is no requirement to continue to keep the order of attachment before judgment, which will certainly impair the valuable constitutional right of the petitioner to deal with his property.

In the result, in exercise of the supervisory powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, I allow the original petition and pass the following orders:

(i) Ext P2 order is set aside.

(ii) IA No.1836/2018 is allowed.

(iii) The order of attachment ordered by the Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor in IA No.1887/1999 will stand vacated and lifted.

(iv) The Court of the Munsiff, Perumbavoor, is directed to communicate this judgment to the jurisdictional Sub-Registry Office and Village Office regrading the lifting of the order of attachment before judgment, who in turn are directed to carry out necessary changes in the revenue records.