IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 146 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2008 IN IA.3429/2007 IN OS.439/2007 of ADDL.SUB COURT,PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A. & 2ND DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- K.J.MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS, RETIRED POLICE OFFICER, KATTUPARAMBIL, RESIDING AT PERIYAR GARDENS, G.C.D.A. ROAD, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMMED RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & IST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- 1. ALEX KOSHY, S/O.T.E.KOSHY, AGED 58 YEARS, THATTAVARA HOUSE, OMALLUR P.O. OMALLUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT DOING BUSINESS AT BOX NO.1029 AJMAN, U.A.E. THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANIL KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.K.BHASURANGAN, R/AT 3/848 A, SARANYA 2. VENUGOPAL, S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 44 YEARS, KULANGARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA NOW RESIDING AT LIOYD'S VILLA, NO.K-7, KALPAKA NAGAR, ATHANI P.O., NEDUMBASSERY. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.146 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. This is an appeal against the order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant herein from alienating or encumbering the plaint schedule property to the 3rd parties and also from committing waste. The petition schedule property was alleged to be a subject matter of an agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the lst defendant. The suit is one for specific performance. In the meanwhile the lst defendant transferred the title and interest over the property to the 2nd defendant, the appellant herein. The appellant contended that he is a bona fide purchaser. The court below, on an evaluation of the preliminary evidence adduced in the matter, found that there is a prima facie case for granting the injunction so as to maintain the status quo and to preserve the property in tact. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that he is a bona fide purchaser, that the land itself was purchased for the purpose of constructing a residential building therein and that the delay in disposing the matter would cause hardship to the appellant. We have -2- F.A.O.No.146/2008 considered the submission of the learned counsel for appellant. In the factual situation, we cannot say that the order passed by the court below is in any way arbitrary or perverse. If the appellant is in possession of the property, necessarily there cannot be any further alienation by him till the disposal of the suit. Whether the appellant is a bona fide purchaser, is a matter on which the appellant is entitled to adduce evidence and the observations contained in the present order is only for the limited purpose of granting the injunction as sought for. 3. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 4. However, it is open to the appellant to move for an advance hearing of the suit itself. According to him, the land is purchased with the intention to construct a residential building thereon and to avert the delay, it is submitted that a direction may be issued to dispose of the suit at an early date. If any such application is filed, we have no doubt that the court below will consider such request and expedite the hearing of the suit. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.