IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No.140 of 2009 ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/02/2009 IN IA 737/2009 IN OS.132/2009 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT (DEFENDANT): ---------------------------------------------- C.M.SHAILAJA DEVI, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.C.P.RAJASEKHARAN, CHITTAR, NANDIYATTUKUNNAM KARA, PARAVOOR VILLAGE, TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT AND RESIDING AT T.C.25/1436, THAIVILA ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER(PLAINTIFF): ------------------------------------------------ M.K.SUDHARSANAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN VAIDYAR, CHIRAG NIVAS, AMBALATHARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK & DISTRICT. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ F. A. O. No.140 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The defendant in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property is the appellant. She challenges the order passed by the court below restraining her by an order of injunction from alienating the plaint schedule property in any manner and creating documents pertaining to the same till the disposal of the suit. Sri.P.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that even before the suit was instituted the property in question stood F. A. O. No.140 of 2009 -2- already alienated. If what the learned counsel says is correct, the appellant cannot have any grievance regarding the impugned order. With that observation, we dismiss this appeal in limine. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE C. K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE kns/-