IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 12TH MAGHA 1932 FAO.No. 274 of 2010() ------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN IA NO.520/2010 IN O.S.NO.105/2010 OF PRL.ADDL.SUB COURT, KOLLAM DATED 13/8/2010) .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------- BIJI, AGED 38, S/O.P.G.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, CHANDRAVILASAM, VALATHUNGAL CHERRY, IRAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT --------------------------------------------- PYAPSI, D/O.BRIJITH, SAGARIKA, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, APPANVILA ROAD, NEAR BOAT CLUB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM ROOP KALA, ERAVIPURAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 011. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts F.A.O.NO.274/2010 ORDER ON I.A.3340/2010 IN F.A.O.NO.274/2010 DISMISSED 01/02/2011 SD/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,JUDGE SD/- P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.S.Gopinathan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O.No.274 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This is an appeal against an order refusing an order of temporary prohibitory injunction. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale sought for a prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction against the owner of the property. The court below found that though the defendant admits receipt of advance under the control for sale, there were no grounds to grant any order of injunction against further transactions. 2.At the stage of admission, we had granted an interim order on I.A.No.3340/2010 to the effect that there would be a temporary injunction FAO274/10 -: 2 :- restraining the respondent from alienating the suit property and from encumbering the same for a period of four months on condition that the appellant produces before the court below a fixed deposit receipt drawn on a nationalized bank in his name for the balance sale consideration in terms of the plaint. This was in a way testing the bonafides of the appellant. Since the matter is yet to go for trial, we do not want to say anything finally on it. But, the fact of the matter remains that even as on today, no fixed deposit receipt is provided before the court below, though the appellant had enjoyed the benefits of the interim order for four months. 3.For the reasons recorded by the learned Subordinate Judge and on the basis of the materials on record, we do not find any reason to hold that there is a prima facie case warranting the issuance of a temporary injunction as prayed for before the court below. This is notwithstanding the fact that the court below has FAO274/10 -: 3 :- recorded that the defendant admits receipt of part of the sale consideration. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs. Sd/- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Sd/- P.S.Gopinathan, Judge. Sha/0302 -true copy- P.S.to Judge.