- (1.)These revision petitions are connected and can be disposed of together.
(2.)The main revision petition is No. 1021/1124. The facts have been indicated correctly in the petition itself as follows.-
"The first defendant in O.S No. 244 of 1111 before the District Munsiff's Court of Attingal is the Revision Petitioner. The counter petitioner who is decree holder in the present case attached the mortgage amount deposited by the first defendant who is the decree holder in O.S. No. 91 of 1099 in the same court. The revision petitioner raised this amount by mortgaging the same property to his wife and others agreeing to hand over the possession of the property to them after taking delivery of the property from the court. The revision petitioner is only an agent who made the deposit on behalf of the mortgagees. The attachment was impeached on the ground that the money does not belong to the Revision Petitioner. The court below dismissed the petition put in by the petitioner and allowed the attachment to stand".

(3.)Along with that revision application the petitioner had filed another petition, C.M.P. No. 337/1124, praying that further execution of the decree in O.S. No. 244/1111 should be stayed till the disposal of the same. That petition was disposed of by this Court by the following order:
"This application is opposed by Mr. G. Viswanatha Ayyar who takes notice. The petition is granted on condition that the petitioner furnishes security for the decree amount to the satisfaction of the lower court within two weeks from this date".

However, the petitioner could not furnish security within the stipulated period and he moved the court below by C.M.P. No. 17854/24 for an extension of time by two days. The Munsiff rejected that petition observing that the "High Court has allowed only two weeks from 6th Mithunam 1124". C.R.P. No. 6/25 is against this order.