IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 FAO.No. 89 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2006 IN IA 4958/06 ORDER IN OS.840/2006 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ----------------------------------------------- MUSTANG MOTORS (P)LTD., SITUATED IN THE ADDRESS 13/116G, NATIONAL HIGHWAY BYPASS ROAD, MARATHAKARA VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK REP. BY ITS BRANCH DIRECTOR DAVIS PAUL, S/O.PAUL, VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, PO PUTHUR, PUTHUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANT ---------------------- ARUN SHANKAR, B.TECH, "SREESHYLAM", OPPOSITE MAIN POST OFFICE, ETTUMANNUR-686 631, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO.964/2007 in F.A.O.89/2007 DISMISSED. 3/7/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F.A.O.No.89/2007 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T RAMAN, J. This appeal arises out of an order passed in I.A.No.4958/2006 in O.S.No.840/2006 in the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. I.A.No.4958/2006 was filed seeking to restrain the defendant from selling the motor vehicle owned by the defendant. The suit is one for realisation of money towards repair charges of the vehicle. In the counter affidavit filed by the defendant, it is pointed out that there is a specific undertaking that he will not sell the vehicle during the pendency of the suit and this undertaking has been recorded in the order impugned in this appeal. It is in such circumstances that the court below refused to pass positive order restraining to sell the vehicle in question. We have heard both sides. Since there is already an undertaking not to sell the vehicle, virtually the interest of the plaintiff is protected. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the order impugned. The appeal is therefore dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge ms