IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 FAO.No. 68 of 2008() -------------------- IA 8624/07 IN OS.1085/2007 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM ...................................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------- K.ARAVINDAKSHAN ,S/O.KUMARAN,AGED 51 KIZHAKKEL HOUSE, VILLAPPILLY P.O., BADAGARA KOZHIKODE TALUK ,RPERESENTED BY POWER ATTORNEY RAGHAVAN,S/O.KUMARAN, OTAYAOTH HOUSE, PONMERY PARAMBIL, VILLIAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- BALAKRISHNA MENON, S/O.C.KRISHNAN NAIR AGED 64, VELIYAMKOTTU HOUSE, THANISSERY P.O. IRINJALAKKUDA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY R.RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE C.RAMAN MENON KURUPPATH HOUSE, CHERUVALLORE P.O., KORATTY 680 321. ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN FOR R1 SRI.ABRAHAM K.JOHN FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, ALONG WITH FAO 270/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- F.A.O. Nos.68 & 270 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 24th November, 2008. J U D G M E N T Sankaran, J. Appellant herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.5/08 and the defendant in O.S.1085/07 on the file of the Sub court, Ernakulam. The respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.1085/07 and the defendant in O.S.No.5/08. O.S.1085/07 was filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint schedule property, whereas O.S.5/08 was filed by the appellant for an injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing upon the plaint schedule property. The disputed property is a house and compound. The court below found that respondent is in settled possession of the property and that his peaceful possession cannot be disturbed by granting an injunction against him. The court below also held that the appellant should be injuncted from alienating the property. The common order passed in these two cases is under challenge in the appeals filed by the defendant in O.S.No.1085/07, who is the plaintiff in O.S.5/08. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the FAO Nos.68 & 270/08 2 appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondent, we are of the view that these appeals can be disposed of directing the trial court to dispose of the suits expeditiously and at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. At the same time, it is also necessary to clarify that the observations/findings in the common order are intended only for the purpose of disposing of the interlocutory applications. The suits shall be disposed of untrammelled by any of the observations or findings in the order under appeal. The respondent shall not alienate the plaint schedule property. He shall not commit any waste or induct strangers in the petition schedule property. The respondent shall not make any additions or alterations to the building without obtaining orders from the court. The injunction granted against the appellant restraining him from alienating the plaint schedule property is confirmed. The trial court shall dispose of the suits expeditiously and at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. It is made clear that both parties will be free to file applications for amendment of the respective plaints. If any such FAO Nos.68 & 270/08 3 application is filed, the time taken for disposal of the applications for amendment shall be excluded from the period of three months prescribed for disposal of the suits mentioned above. The appeals are disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ ---------------------------------------------- F.A.O. Nos.68 & 270 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 24th November, 2008.