IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH APRIL 2009 / 10TH VAISAKHA 1931 FAO.No. 100 of 2009() ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 652/2009 IN AS.2/2009 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/1ST PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------------------------------------- GOPINATHAN, AGED 72, S/O. LATE KOMATTIL NARAYANI AMMA, VENGANELLUR VILLAGE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1,2,4,5 AND 6 / PETITIONERS : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAILJA MENON W/O. UDAYA KUMAR, "PARVATHY", 1/1497, V.K.PARAMBA, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. 2. SARITHA D/O. SHAILJA MENON, "PARVATHY", 1/1497, V.K.PARAMBA, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. 3. SUMANGALA PRASAD, D/O. SHAILAJA MENON, "PARVATHY", 1/1497, V.K.PARAMBA, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. 4. KUTTAN @ ACHUTHANANDAN D/O. SHAILAJA MENON, "PARVATHY", 1/1497, V.K.PARAMBA, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. FAO.No. 100 of 2009 5. PRASAD, S/O. SUKUMARA MANNADIAR, V.K.PARAMBA, EAST NADAKKAVU, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)(CAVEATOR) SMT.R.RAJITHA (CAVEATOR) SRI.SUDHI VASUDEVAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * F.A. O.NO. 100 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 30th April 2009 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. The order impugned in this appeal is the interim order passed in I.A. No. 652 of 2009 in A.S. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the I Addl. District Court, Thrissur. As per the decree passed in O.S. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Munsiff's Court. Wadakkancherry, there is an injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with the possession of the appellant in respect of the house in the plaint A schedule property. Deciding the interlocutory application filed in the appeal,, the lower appellate court has virtually decided the appeal. Accordingly, I direct the lower appellate court to dispose of A.S. No. 2 of 2009 expeditiously after hearing both sides. Until then, the respondents herein shall not interfere with the possession of the house by the appellant as per the decree passed by the trial court. This F.A. O is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani ani.