IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 FAO.NO. 4 OF 2010() ------------------- {I.A.NO.7558/09 IN OS.781/2009 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM} .................... APPELANT:-(RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT) ---------------------------------------------- KURIAKOSE,S/O.VARGHESE,SANGOORIKKAL HOUSE,KALLOR,KOCHI-17. (NOW RESIDING AT SANKOORICKAL HOUSE,MAMPATT LANE, PUTHENKULANGARA,EROOR.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.K.ACHANKUNJU RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF ------------------------------ TESSY JOSEPH,W/O.JOSEPH,T.C.NO.35/1842-A KANNOTH HOUSE,SOUTH JANATHA ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-25. ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.P.A.MARTIN ROY THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.4 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The defendant in a suit, impeaching a sale deed, is the appellant. Under challenge is an order of temporary injunction against alienation. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clear in our mind that any transaction would have been only lis pendens. In such circumstances, all that is required is trial of the suit is expedited and decision rendered independent of any observation in the impugned order. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal, however, directing that the court below will decide the suit finally, untrammelled by anything F.A.O.No.4 of 2010 :: 2 :: stated in the impugned order. Subject to other old matters pending in that court, endeavour should be made for disposal of the suit at the earliest, if sought for by the defendant. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.