IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 FAO.No. 311 of 2011 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/06/2011 IN IA 977/2011 IN OS.202/2011 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT (S) PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- RAVI KUMAR, S/O.RAJASEKHARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SIVALAYAM, OLATHTHERUVU, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.R.SANJITH SMT.LIJITTA G.MATHEW SMT.S.K.SREEKALA RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.BIJU KRISHNA, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, KRISHNA, RAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM-695123. 2. THE MANAGER, DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, BALARAMAPURAM BRANCH, BALARAMAMPURAM P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695501. 3. SURENDRAN, S/O.KUTTANPILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, KADAYARAVILA PUTHENVEEDU, RAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR DESOM, THANNIMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123. 4. RAJAGOPAL, S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PUNNAIKKADU, BALARAMAPURAM, ATHIYANNOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695123. FAO.No. 311 of 2011 -2- 5. SOMAN, S/O.ACHUTHA PANICKER, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADINJATIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM, ULLOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. R1 BY ADV.SRI.S.BALACHANDRAN KULASEKHARAM SRI.V.R.GOPU. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.311 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.202/2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. Appellant filed I.A.No.977/2011 under Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction against the respondent from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, committing any waste, cutting any trees and removing soil from the property. The case of the appellant in brief is that appellant owned the plaint schedule property and it is by way of fraud, coercion and undue influence that the sale deed got executed in favour of the Ist respondent. There is a commission report in this case. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the vacation court has ordered status quo which is flouted. We have gone through the impugned order 2. . We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Ist respondent (caveator) also. The court below has found that construction has been made in the FAO 311/2011 -2- petition schedule property. We would think that we need not interfere with the order as the appellant has not made out any case for interference as such. We only direct that the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara will dispose of O.S.No.202/2011 completely untrammelled by any of the observations or findings which it has made in the impugned order. We also further direct that the Sub Court will dispose of the suit at the earliest. Subject to the same we confirm the order passed by the Sub Court, Neyyattinkara. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS