IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 FAO.No. 292 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/07/2009 IN IA.3138/2008 IN CMA.122/2008 of ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: ---------------- CYRIL MAR BASELIOUS,AGED 52, METROPOLITAN OF MALABAR INDEPENDENT SYRIAN CHURCH, THOZHIYOOR,TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.HARIKUMAR SMT.MOLLY KOSHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.C.MATHEWKUTTY,AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO,MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE,CHALLISSERY POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. P.K.KUNJUKUNJHAN,AGED 82 YEARS, S/O.KURIYAN,PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE,KALLUMPURAM, KADAVALLUR POST,THALAPPILLY TALUK,THISSUR DIST. 3. C.K.WILSON,AGED48 YEARS,S/O.KURIYAPPAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE,NEPANS ROAD,KUNNAMKULAM POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 4. P.M.CHARLY,AGED 39 YEARS,S/O.MOSAS, PANAKKAL HOUSE,CHALISSERY POST,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. REV.FR.K.A.JOB,AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM,KUZHUPPULLY HOUSE,CHALISSERY ROAD, KADAVALLUR POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 6. E.T.CHERU,AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.THATHU, PANAKKAL HOUSE,WEST BAZAR,KUNNAMKULAM, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 7. C.K.APPAPPU, AGED 65 YEARS,S/O.KURIAN, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE,FIRE STATION ROAD,KUNNAMKULAM TALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 8. C.K.PAVU,AGED 62 YEARS,S/O.KUNJAN, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE,PORKULAM,THALAPPILLY TALUK. 9. M.C.THAMBI,AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.CHUMMAR,MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, KORATTIKKARA POST. 11. P.C.BABY,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.CHAKKUNNY,PULAKKAL HOUSE,PERINGODU POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 12. P.T.KUTTAPPAN,AGED 87 YEARS,S/O.THANJU, PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE,KALLUMPURAM,KADAVALLUR POST, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 13. M.U.KOCHU KUNJU,AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.UKRU,MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE,KALLUMPURAM, KADAVALLOOR POST,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 14. C.V.THARUKUTTY, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.VAREEKUTTY CHEERAN HOUSE,CHALISSERY POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 15. REV.FR.P.B.BABU VARGHESE,AGED 69 YRS, S/O.VARGHESE,PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE,PAZHANJI, THALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R1-15 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... F.A.O.No.292 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Thrissur in I.A.No.3138/2008 in C.M.A.No.122/2008/. C.M.A.No.122/2008 was preferred against the order in I.A.No.1611/2008 in O.S.No.431/2008. So, the CMA was filed against an interim order passed in O.S.No.431/2008. In that CMA, another interim application is filed and aggrieved by that decision, the FAO is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents contends before me that there is a clear bar under Section 104(2) of C.P.C in filing such an appeal. Section 104 deals with orders from which an appeal lies. Section 104(2) very clearly states that no appeal shall lie from any order passed in an appeal under this section. So, the original order itself is passed under Section 104. When it is so, a second appeal is not contemplated from an order passed exercising such jurisdiction. So, an appeal filed against an interim order passed in an appeal which is filed against an order is clearly barred under Section 104(2) of the C.P.C. : 2 : F.A.O.No.292 OF 2009 Therefore the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. But I make it clear that if there is any legal remedy available to the party, he may resort to the same in accordance with law. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : F.A.O.No.292 OF 2009