ORDER

Dated this the 07th day of October, 2022 Aggrieved by the judgment passed in the original petition, the petitioner has filed the review petition.

2. The review petitioner had filed the original petition to set aside the proceedings dated 19.01.2017 to 27.10.2017 passed in O.S.No.1145/2014 of the Court of the III Additional Munsiff, Ernakulam, and direct the court below to pass orders on Exts.P6 to P9 judicially.

3. The petitioner's case, in brief, in the original petition, was that she had filed the suit against the respondent for realisation of money. The respondent was set ex-parte. The petitioner let in evidence as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on the side. However, the court below dismissed the suit. As a consequence of the dismissal of the suit, the order of attachment before judgment was also lifted. The petitioner does not have the means to challenge the judgment and decree in appeal, as she would have to pay an amount of Rs.1 Lakh/- as court fee. The petitioner filed Exts.P6 to P9 applications to stay the order lifting the order of attachment, to review the judgment, to keep in abeyance the order lifting the attachment and an application to rehear the suit. The respondent sought time to file counter affidavits to the applications but was making attempts to sell the attached property. In the nature of the pleadings, the court below ought to have decreed the suit. Hence, the original petition. 4. When the original petition came up for admission on 18.04.2017, this Court issued notice before admission and stayed the order lifting the attachment before judgment for a period of two months. The said order was subsequently extended until further orders.

5. When the original petition came up for further consideration on 22.07.2022, this Court taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal or moved the review petition and also considering the mandate under Order 38 Rules 9 and 11A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, 'Code') held that, as the suit itself was dismissed and it was against the above statutory provisions to keep the order of attachment before judgment in force. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the original petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out her remedies in accordance with law.

6. The petitioner now contends that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment, which may be reviewed. Hence, the review petition.

7. Heard; Sri.B.Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner.

8. Admittedly, the suit has been dismissed and the order of attachment before judgment has been lifted. The petitioner contends that since she does not have the means to pay the court fee, the decree is to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am afraid that the said course is impermissible in law. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the decree, she has to challenge the same in a right royal appeal and not in a proceedings under Article 227.

9. Furthermore, when a suit is dismissed, the order of attachment has to be lifted as provided under Order 38 Rule 9 of the Code, and Rule 11A (2) of Order 38 of the Code specifically stipulates that even if the suit is revived, it does not automatically revive the order of attachment before judgment. At any rate, an order of attachment before judgment in a dismissed suit cannot be permitted to be kept alive in perpetuity by an interim order in an original petition filed under Article 227. I do no find any error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed.

The review petition is devoid of any merits and is hence dismissed.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS Judge

NR/07/10/2022

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES Annexure A-1 A TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 30/07/2014 ISSUED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER THROUGH COUNSEL Annexure A-2 A TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED 07/08/2014 Annexure A-3 A TRUE COPY OF CHITTY PASS BOOK DATED

01/ 10/2013 Annexure A-4 A TRUE COPY OF PASS BOOK FROM VIJAYA BANK DATED