IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 FAO.No. 325 of 2011 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/10/2011 IN IA.1926/2010 IN OS.452/2010 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT (S): PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- P.S.SASIKUMAR, 46 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN NAIR, ADARSH NO.38,VIDHYUDH NAGAR, KOPPAM AMSOM,PALAKKAD BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- SAHADEVAN,55 YEARS, S/O.KUNJELAN RAMAN THODIKA, PERUVAMBA AMSOM DESOM, PALAKKAD. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A. M. SHAFFIQUE, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.325 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance. He filed I.A.1926/2010 seeking interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating his right over the plaint schedule property to third party or inducting third party into the said property or from transferring the management of the school in the plaint schedule property or from making any appointment in that school pending disposal of the suit. Briefly put, the case of the appellant is as follows: An agreement of sale was entered into between the appellant and respondent on 8.8.2008 whereby the respondent agreed that he would sell his 1/3 right over the plaint schedule property and further agreed that the 2/3 share of the respondent's sisters over the plaint schedule property also would be sold to the appellant for a consideration of Rs.80 lakhs within a period of six months. Reference is made to the payments made as advance. Default is alleged in performance of the contract against the respondent. The court below has partly allowed the application and restrained the respondent from transferring or assigning his share or co-ownership over the plaint schedule property to FAO 325/2011 -2- anybody other than the appellant or his nominee. 2. This appeal is filed feeling aggrieved by that portion of the impugned order by which the court below has refused to injunct the respondent from making appointments of teachers. It is the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that under the agreement there is specific provision as per which the respondent has agreed that he will not make any appointment in the school. The court below took note of Sec.33 of the Kerala Education Act and found that such relief will not lie in view of the express bar contained in Sec.33 of the Kerala Education Act. Section 33 of the Kerala Education Act reads as under: “33. Court not to grant injunction- Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall grant any temporary injunction or make any interim order restraining any proceeding which is being or about to be taken under this Act.” 3. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant brings to our notice the fact that the appellant sought relief before the Writ Court, but, that also culminated in failure as the Writ Court took the view that it is purely a civil matter. Therefore, he complains he has no remedy. We are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is an express bar contained in Sec.33. The embargo is directed against FAO 325/2011 -3- the Civil Court. It vetoes any order by which the Civil Court would restrain taking of any proceedings which is being taken or about to be taken under the Act. An appointment is to be made by the manager under the provisions of the Act. Appellant seeks to restrain the manager from exercising the power which he has under the Act, viz., to make appointment under the Act. May be he has entered into a contract under which he has agreed that he would not make any appointment, but, the pertinent question is whether the Civil Court can interfere in the matter to enforce such a contract. We would think in the teeth of clear provision of Sec.33 of the Kerala Education Act the interim prayer sought against appointment of teachers by the respondent/manager would not lie. In such circumstances, we affirm the impugned order. Seeing no merit in the appeal we dismiss the same. The Sub Court, Palakkad shall dispose of O.S.No.452/2010 at the earliest. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (A. M. SHAFFIQUE) JUDGE. MS