IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA, 1946 OP(C) NO. 100 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OS NO.199 OF 2009 OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT/PRINCIPAL SUB COURT / COMMERCIAL COURT,NORTH PARAVUR PETITIONER:

BINOJ BHARGAVAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O LATE BHARGAVAN, 'AISWARYA', NEAR J.B.S ANGAMALY,, PIN - 683572 BY ADV N.K.MOHANLAL RESPONDENTS:

1 JAYAMOHAN NAIR (DIED)

S/O MANIYANATTU SREEDHARANPILLA, NARAYANEEYAM, NEAR VIRAD ROAD, KIZHAKKEPRAM, VAZHIKULANGARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR,, PIN - 683513

2 BINDU JAYAMOHAN NAIR W/O LATE JAYAMOHAN NAIR NARAYANEEYAM, NEAR VIRAD ROAD, KIZHAKKEPRAM, VAZHIKULANGARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683513

3 LAKSHMI D/O LATE JAYAMOHAN NAIR NARAYANEEYAM, NEAR VIRAD ROAD, KIZHAKKEPRAM, VAZHIKULANGARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR., PIN - 683513

4 JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE JAYAMOHAN NAIR NARAYANEEYAM, NEAR VIRAD ROAD, KIZHAKKEPRAM, VAZHIKULANGARA P.O, NORTH PARAVUR., PIN - 683513 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

16.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.M. MANOJ, J -----------------------------------

O.P.(C) No.100 of 2025 ----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2025

JUDGMENT

The original petition is preferred by a person who is not a party in O.S. No.199 of 2009 on the files of the Prinicpal Sub Court, North Paravur.

2. The petitioner herein has preferred a claim petition along with his brother under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of CPC as per I.A. No.67 of 2023 stating a claim against A & B schedule properties. The said properties were in absolute ownership and possession of late Bharghavan, father of the claimants, by virtue of sale deed Nos.1267 of 2008 and 1268 of 2008 dated 16.02.2008 of Chengamanad SRO and claim C schedule property is in the absolute ownership and possession of the 1^st petitioner herein by virtue of sale deed No.1269 of 2008 dated 16.02.2008 of Chengamanad SRO.

3. The petitioners in the claim petition are the sons of late Bharghavan and they inherited the said schedule property as the legal heirs. Their sister and mother are also the co-owners of the claim A & B schedule properties and they also preferred the claim petition in the aforementioned suit.

4. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in the suit and had obtained an order of attachment on the plaint schedule property in I.A. No.1349 of 2009, for recovery of money from the defendants in the suit. They obtained an order of attachment falsely claiming that, the claim schedule property belongs to the defendant in the suit, but suppressing the fact that the property was purchased by the deceased Bharghavan, claimant No.1 long before the attachment on 16.02.2008.

5. It is further stated that the defendants in the suit had no ownership and possession over the claim schedule property which had been falsely and maliciously attached. During the pendency the original plaintiff learnt to have died after passing of the decree in suit, which was noticed only after issuing notice to him in the claim petition and the said notice was returned. Therefore his legal heirs were impleaded in the claim petition as additional respondents 2 to 4. When the matter was posted before the Trial Court on 21.11.2024, the respondent’s counsel submitted that they have no objection in the claim petition, however, the case was posted for objection of the respondents on various dates. Now it stands posted to 23.01.2025. Due to some financial constrains, the petitioner herein wants to sell the property. However, due to the pendency of these proceedings, they cannot sell the property. This is the circumstance in which this original petition was preferred. The only prayer sought in the original petition is to issue a direction to the Principal Sub Court, North Paravur to dispose of Ext.P1 claim petition i.e., I.A. No.67 of 2023 in O.S. No.199 of 2009, in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

7. I have heard the lea