IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 FAO.No. 98 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2008 IN IA.1751/2008 IN OS.NO.223/2008 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------- C.V.ANTONY, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, THYKKOODAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: ------------------------------------ 1. CHACKO, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE VARKEY, RESIDING AT VALLUSSEERY HOUSE, CHILAVANNOOR, KOCHI-20. 2. ANTONY, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE VARKEY, RESIDING AT VALLUVASSERY HOUSE, CHILAVANNOOR, KOCHI-20. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI K.R.VINOD THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.98 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.223/2008, a suit for specific performance. In the suit he filed an I.A. No.1751/2008 for an injunction restraining the defendants (respondents herein) from alienating or encumbering the plaint schedule property. It is his case that during the period of agreement an attempt was made to sell the property to somebody and therefore, he filed a suit O.S.No.112/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam and an order of injunction was granted in his favour till the expiry of the period of agreement. After the expiry of the period of agreement, he filed a suit for specific performance. The court below recorded in paragraph 3 of its order impugned in this appeal that "according to respondents, they never intended to sell the plaint schedule property, as it is their only asset." Though the court below found that no evidence was adduced to show that the respondents are trying to alienate, encumber or commit waste in the plaint schedule property, it did not record the averments made in -2- F.A.O.No.98/2008 the counter affidavit. Instead the petition was dismissed. At the time of admission itself, the learned counsel Sri K.R. Vinod took notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no intention on the part of his clients to alienate or encumber the property as at present and there is no necessity for any injunction nor the appellant is entitled for the same. 3. Heard both sides. In view of the categorical statement made by the learned counsel that his clients have no intention to sell or encumber the property in question for the time being, we direct that the plaint schedule property shall not be alienated or encumbered for a period of six months. The court below may dispose of the suit in the meantime. If however, the suit could not be disposed of for exceptional reasons, then it is open to the appellant to seek extension of this order at that time. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that a petition for attachment of the plaint schedule property stands posted today. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he will not press the said petition. The same is also recorded. Appeal is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.