IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1932 FAO.No. 42 of 2011() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/07/2010 IN IA.685/2010 IN OS.110/2010 of SUB COURT,KATTAPPANA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------- RIYAS ALI.B.B., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.B.P.BASHEER, BUNGLAW PARAMBIL ALIAS BUNGLAW ANIKODE KARAYIL MATHUR VILLAGE, KARIYANKODE POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MUTHUR MOTHAN, ARAPATH HOUSE, KARNAKI NAGAR, VADAKKANTHARA POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. 2. SHAHI HISHAM, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED ISMAYIL, MAYILADI HOUSE, KURISAMKULAM PIRAYIRI VILLAGE, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- C.M.Appln.327 OF 2011 & F.A.O.No.42 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. C.M.Appln.No.327 OF 2011 is filed for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal against on order by which the court below dismissed an application for temporary injunction. The plaintiff is the appellant. He sued for a declaration that a particular sale deed is null and void and would not bind his interest. The court below proceeded with the interlocutory application by considering the objections of the defendants and after hearing learned counsel for the defendants because the learned counsel for the plaintiff did not argue the matter. Whatever be the merits of the rival contentions, the impugned order is passed on 26.7.2010 and it is not necessary to entertain an appeal against that order at this point of time but FAO.42/11 2 it is only to be ensured that the parties are not objected at trial by any observations contained in the impugned order. With that in view, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that his client would be satisfied if the transactions that the defendant may enter is subject to the result of the suit. We are not impressed going by that because the principle of lis pendens applies to situations to which that doctrine may be relevant. Under such circumstances, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay and consequently the appeal, however, directing the court below to decide the suit untrammelled by anything stated in the order impugned in this appeal. The court below will ensure that the views expressed in the impugned order would in no manner affect the decision making process of completion of trial and final hearing of the suit. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.22/2.