IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No. 106 of 2010 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2010 IN IA 8601/2009 IN OS.1016/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1& 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANTO CHAKKARAMAKKIL, S/O CHAKKARAMAKKIL THOMAS, IX/88A OLD V, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SINI ANTO, W/O ANTO, CHAKKARAMAKKIL HOUSE, IX/88A OLD V, PALUVAI, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------ KURIAKOSE, S/O CHAKKARAMAKKIL LONAPPAN, PALUVAI DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. CAVEATOR SRI.MANJU ANTONEY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ F. A. O. No.106 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J It is submitted by Advocate Sri.Manju Antoney who claims to have lodged a caveat on behalf of the respondent that the respondent has also preferred an appeal against the impugned order. According to him, that appeal is not being posted by the Registry. We are of the view that the pendency of an appeal filed by the appellant need not deter us from considering the merits of the present appeal. 2. We have heard Sri.N.J.Johnson, the learned counsel for the appellants in extenso. F. A. O. No.106 of 2010 -2- According to him, the impugned order is likely to be misinterpreted by the Police officers in the area and the appellants stand the risk of being forcefully ejected out of the building. We do not think so. Under the impugned order the injunction that was sought for was one to restrain the appellants from occupying the building in question. The learned Subordinate Judge has specifically found that the appellants are already in occupation of the building in question. In fact, the prayer for injunction restraining the appellants from occupying the building was declined. Injunction has been granted only to the limited extent of restraining the appellants from creating any documents, title or interest with respect to the plaint schedule property and from incurring F. A. O. No.106 of 2010 -3- further encumbrances over the property as if they are the owners of the land. Clarifying accordingly, we dismiss the appeal in limine. According to us, any pendente lite transfer even in the absence of order of injunction like the one presently passed will be hit by the rule of lis pendens as enshrined under section 52 of the T.P. Act. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-