IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 FAO.No. 213 OF 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/07/2008 IN IA 1067/08 &IA 1068/08 IN OS.146/2008 of SUB COURT,KOTTARAKKARA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:- C.R.RAJI, W/O PRINCIE AGED 42, SREENIKETHAN,PANGODU, THAZHAM MURI PAVITHRESWARAM VILLAGE KARIMPINPUZHA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF : NELSON,S/O THOMAS AGED 50, PANTHIRUVELIL, ELIKKATTOOR P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. 213 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Defendant, the respondent in I.A. 1067/2008 is the appellant herein. Plaintiff is the petitioner in the said application, who is the respondent herein. The suit is one for specific performance or in the alternative for return of advance amount of Rs. 3 lakhs and compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-. Plaintiff contended that pursuant to the agreement for sale, he paid an amount of Rs. 3, 00,000/- by way of advance. But the defendant suppressed the fact that he had executed another document for sale and the original of the documents were produced in a suit in connection thereof. Therefore, the defendant was not ready and willing and even suppressed the above facts as noticed earlier. It is in such circumstances, that he filed the suit for specific performance and sought the alternate relief. 2. Along with the suit, he filed I.A. 1067/2008 and I.A. 1068/2008 also. The prayer made in I.A. 1067/2008 is to direct the appellant/defendant to furnish security for the total amount of Rs. 11,50,000/- which is claimed FAO 213/2008 :2: as compensation. The trial court granted the relief as sought for. In I.A. 1068/2008, he prayed that the defendant be restrained from executing any document in respect of the plaint schedule property or encumber the same till the disposal of the suit. The trial court granted that relief as well. In effect, by the two orders passed by the court below, the defendant is not only restrained from executing any document or encumbering the property, but also directed to furnish security of Rs. 11,50,000/- and till such time there is an interim conditional attachment of the property. We find that the prayer made in I.A. Nos. 1067 & 1068/2008 are mixed up. As a matter of fact, it is for the plaintiff to choose the best out of the two reliefs sought for in I.A. 1067/208 and in I.A. 1068/2008, as the case may be. The purpose of an interim order is to sub serve the main relief sought for in the main suit. The suit is one for specific performance and it is only by way of alternate relief he is claiming compensation. Therefore, by restraining the defendant from executing any document or from encumbering the property, the interest of the plaintiff is fully safeguarded. Hence, we do not think that the further relief to furnish security till such time to effect any attachment on the property, is found necessary. Accordingly, we confirm the order in I.A. No. 1068/2008 by which the court below has directed not to alienate or encumber the property. He shall also not commit any waste therein. The FAO 213/2008 :3: order in I.A. No. 1067/2008 is vacated. If the pre-trial stage is over, the suit itself be finally disposed of as expeditiously as possible. The F.A.O. is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE) knc/-