A tribunal cannot enforce attachment orders without civil court authority, protecting third-party ownership rights.

BASANT BALAJI J ======================

W.P. (C) No. 46980 of 2025 ========================

Dated 09^th day of January 2026 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession of 4.36 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos. 43/8A1 and 43/8A2 of Pallippuram Village, Alappuzha District, falling within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally. The borrower had availed a personal loan of ₹30,000/- from the third respondent, a company engaged in the business of granting loans on hypothecation and guarantee basis. The petitioner stood as guarantor for the said loan pursuant to a loan agreement executed between the parties. Owing to financial difficulties, the borrower defaulted in repayment of certain instalments. Consequently, the third respondent initiated arbitration proceedings in terms of the agreement, and the dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator.

2. In an interim application filed by the third respondent, the learned Arbitrator passed an order permitting conditional attachment of the petitioner’s property. The said order was communicated by the Arbitrator to the Sub Registrar Office and the Village Officer concerned, directing them to record the attachment in the registration and revenue records. As a result, the attachment was reflected in the encumbrance records. Subsequently, the borrower discharged the entire outstanding liability due to the third respondent and obtained confirmation of full and final settlement of the loan. After discharge of the liability, the petitioner and the borrower approached the first and second respondents seeking removal of the attachment entry from the registration and revenue records. However, they were informed that such removal could be effected only on the basis of an order passed by a competent court. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction to the 1^st and 2^nd respondents, to e and remove the entry of attachment made pursuant to Exhibit Pl Order in the registration and revenue records relating to the petitioner's property comprised in Survey Nos. 43/8A1, 43/8A2 of Pallippuram Village, Alappuzha District, within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar Office, Panavally.

2. Issue any such other Order or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. To dispense with the filing of the Translation of the vernacular documents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Saneesha M.S and Ors. [2024 SCC online Ker 5233]

wherein, it was held as follows:

“10. The question is what is the remedy then available for a third party who is aggrieved by an order of attachment. So long as the order is not enforced, the same is not self workable. If it is enforced through a civil court, necessarily, the third party, who is aggrieved can raise his objection against the enforcement or even after the enforcement, the third party can very well raise an objection as against the enforcement by claiming that the property belongs to him. The Code of Civil Procedure provides necessary mechanism for the third party to raise a claim or title over the property. We are of the view that the writ petitioner -Saneesha M S, is not deprived of any remedy as the Code of Civil Procedure safeguard such interest of the third parties. The law is very clear that the tribunal cannot exercise sovereign function of enforcement and such power is vested with civil court. Therefore, writ petitioner - Saneesha M S can very well resist the enforcement or can raise a claim before