IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2009 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 92 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/04/2008 IN IA 144/2008 IN OS.21/2008 of SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN I.A. ----------------------------- K.P.CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI,RADHALAYATHIL, KARAZHAMA MURI, VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.VINOD BHAT RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN I.A. 144/2008: -------------------------------------- KESAVA PILLAI,S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, POURNAMI VEETTIL ELIPPAKULAMMURI, VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.G.JANARDHANA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.B.VINOD THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 92 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Since the respondent has entered appearance through counsel, we heard both sides. This appeal arises out of an order passed by the Sub Court, Mavelikkara in an application for temporary injunction filed as I.A.144/2008. The suit itself is one for specific performance. The temporary injunction sought for is to restrain the counter- petitioner/defendant from making any encumbrance over the plaint schedule property and committing any waste or mischief by cutting down and removing the standing trees and removing earth from the property or from making any construction in the property till the disposal of the suit. The court below dismissed the application, after entering a prima facie finding that the agreement Ext.A1 is a bogus one and that the balance of convenience is not in favour of granting any injunction as sought for. FAO 92/2009 :2: 2. According to the respondent, the property in question belongs to him and he proposed to construct a petrol pump therein. The appellant, none other than his brother-in-law, created a document so as to prevent him from constructing such a petrol pump and operating the same. Since we are not entering a finding on the merits of the case, suffice to say that during the pendecy of the suit and in the absence of any interim injunction, the petrol pump is already constructed and is working. If so, the only order that is to be passed is to maintain status quo and we do so. 3. In view of the above position, there is force in the contention of the respondent that the order passed by the court below is justified. In the above view, all that we need is to direct expedite disposal of the suit untrammelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this court or by the trial court. The F.A.O. is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-