JUDGMENT

The property mortgaged to the petitioner Bank by the 3rd respondent in the year 2003, for availing a housing loan, has been attached in the year 2008, pursuant to Ext.P5 order obtained by the 2nd respondent, who is an unsecured creditor of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, according to the petitioner Bank, the attachment effected by the 1st respondent in compliance with Ext.P5 order is illegal, since the petitioner has prior charge over the mortgaged property. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 representation before the concerned statutory authority. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

2. Today, petitioner has produced Exts.P9 and P10 along with I.A.No.4268 of 2017, whereby the application submitted by the 2nd respondent before the District Court, Ernakulam is seen dismissed as per its order dated 25.08.2009, and as per Ext.P10 dated 22.04.2010, the office of the Sub Registrar, Meenchantha, Kozhikode was directed to W.P.(C) No.17527 of 2016 2 release the attachment noted thereunder. In view of the developments that have taken place after the filing of the writ petition consequent to the production of said documents, I think it is only