IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 FAO.No. 294 of 2006() --------------------- I.A.936/2006 IN OS.202/2006 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- VELAYUDHAN, S/O.NAMBOTTY MAMU, CHOOLUR DESOM, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- SAJITH, S/O.JARATHINGAL ABDULLA HAJI, INJAMUDI DESOM, INJAMUDI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 294 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, This is an appeal against an order in I.A. No.936 of 2006 in O.S. 202 of 2006, an application for injunction filed by the appellant. The suit is one for setting aside the document. During the pendency of the suit, as an interim measure, the appellant sought for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property. Thereafter, after contest the present order was passed. It was found that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,23,582/- and the suit is based on that transaction. A direction was given to the appellant to deposit the said amount, failing which the injunction granted was liable to the vacated. At the time of admission, interim stay of this order was granted by this court and continues as on date. The order impugned in this appeal is passed as early as in August, 2006, and more than three years have elapsed and the said order has not come into force. At this distance of time, we do not think that the order passed by the court F.A.O. 294/2006.. 2 below should be resurrected. The court below did not however consider as to whether this is a fit case where any injunction could be granted to the petitioner or not. The prima facie case or balance of convenience is also not discussed. In the circumstances, we vacate that part of the order, whereby the condition is imposed. Temporary injunction will continue until further orders are passed, to which end the respondent is entitled to move for. Since the suit is of the year 2006, if the pre-trial stages are over, the court may consider disposal of the suit itself. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.