IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 FAO.No. 211 of 2011() --------------------- (AGAINST IA.. NO..3911/11 IN OS.369/2011 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR) .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4/ PLAINTIFFS: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.KUNALIL THOMAS, PUTHURUTHY DESOM, VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 2. POULOSE, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.NEELANKAVIL CHAKKAPPAN, PUTHURUTHY DESOM, VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. GEEVARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MARASSERY MATHAI, KAKKINIKKADU DESOM, VIRIPPAKKA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. CHACKO, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.KALAPURACKALL CHACKO, VARIKULAM DESOM, MADAKKATHARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6/ DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAGHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN KUTTANCHERY DESOM, NELLUVAI VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK 680- 584. 2. VENU @ VENUGOPALAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN KUTTANCHERY DESOM, NELLUVAI VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK 680- 584. 3. MUKESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN KUTTANCHERY DESOM, NELLUVAI VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK 680- 584. 4. SREENIVASAN, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN KUTTANCHERY DESOM, NELLUVAI VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK 680- 584. 5. SHAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.PUTHIYAPARAMBIL APPUKUTTAN KUTTANCHERY DESOM, NELLUVAI VILLAGE THALAPPILLY TALUK 680- 584. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No.211 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph J., The appellants are the respondents in I.A. No.3911 of 2011 in O.S. No. 369 of 2011, which is a suit for specific performance. The appellants filed I.A. No.2378 of 2011 claiming injunction against respondents/defendants. It is their case that they are in possession of the plaint schedule property pursuant to the agreement of sale. They further complain that they had paid advance and that they were taking yield. I.A. No.3911 of 2011 was filed by the respondents/defendants praying for an injunction against the appellants stating that they are trespassing to the plaint schedule property. The Court below allowed I.A. No.3911 of 2011 and ordered injunction against appellants restraining them from trespassing into the plaint schedule property. F.A.O. No.211 of 2011 :2: 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellants. Learned counsel for the caveator was also present. 3. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter. At the same time, we feel that there can be a direction issued to the Principal Sub Judge, Thrissur to dispose of the suit finally, before the closure of Court for summer vacation. It is ordered accordingly. 4. We make it clear that the Court will decide the matter untrammeled by any observations contained in the impugned order. K.M.JOSEPH, (JUDGE) M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE) dl/