IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 FAO.No. 17 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/06/2010 IN IA.987/2009 IN OS.191/2009 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------- LAL KUMAR GOPI S/O.GOPINATHAN @ GOPI, PATTATHUYILA 224, BHAVANA NAGAR, KADAPPAKKADA PO, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KADAPPAKKADA PO,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------ 1. ARUNDHATHI, W/O.SIVADASAN,KUNNISSERIL VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR PO, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-691 004. 2. ANITHA SHANAVAS, D/O.ARUNDHATHI ROHINI, VETTILATHAZHAM CHERRY, THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, DECENT MUKKU PO, KOLLAM PIN-691577. 3. MEENA ANIL KUMAR, D/O.ARUNDHATHI GOKULAM, PUNNATHALATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR PO, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691004. 4. YAMUNA SHAJI(JAMUNA),D/O.ARUNDHATHI, KUN NISSERIL, KANNIMEL CHERRY, KILIKOLLOOR PO, KOLLAM-PIN-691004. 5. LISSY RAJEEV, D/O.ARUNDHATHI, THENGGILAZ HIKOM VEEDU, KANJAVELI PO, KOLLAM-PIN-691602. 6. SIVADASAN, S/O.NANU, KUNNISSERIL, KANNIM EL CHERRY, KUNNISSERIL, KILIKOLLOOR PO, KOLLAM, PIN-691004. FAO.17/11 2 7. SHANAVAS, S/O.SHANMUKHAM, ROHINI, VETTILATHAZHAM CHERRY,THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, DECENT MUKKU PO, KOLLAM PO.691577. 8. ANILKUMAR, GOKULAM, PUTHALATHAZHAM, KILIKOLLOOR PO, KOLLAM PIN-691 004. 9. SHAJI, KUNNISSERIL VEEDU, KANNIMEL CHERR Y, KILIKOLLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM KILIKOLLOOR PO, KOLLAM TALUK,PIN-691 004. 10. RAJEEV, THENGGILAZHIKAM VEEDU, KANJAVELI PO, KOLLAM PO, 691 602. 11. P.SUDHAKARAN, ADVOCATE, ARYA WEST OF T.D.TEMPLE, CUTCHERRY WARD PO,KOLLAM - 691 013. 12. M.MOHANAN, ADVOCATE, ASWATHI, SAKTHIKULA NGARA PO,. KOLLAM P[IN- 691 581. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- F.A.O.No.17 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.In the light of the judgment being issued hereunder, notice to the respondents dispensed with, preserving their right for re-hearing of the matter, if aggrieved. 2.The plaintiff is the appellant. He challenges the dismissal of an application for temporary injunction. It is stated that there was an ad interim interlocutory order and that was vacated as per the impugned order. 3.We have read the order. The appellant may be justified in saying that the court below has expressed views touching the merits of the contentions as regards a Will and such finding in the impugned order may vitiate the trial. But, without stating reasons, the trial court could not have issued FAO.17/11 2 the order. Therefore, to balance the scales of justice, all that is required is that the trial court will proceed with the trial untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order or in this judgment. 4.We take this course of disposing of this appeal even without hearing the respondents because we find that the parties were before this court in W.P(C).26220/10 and learned single Judge has issued different directions, including for expeditious consideration and disposal of the suit after issuance of a commission. In the result, this appeal is dismissed however directing that the court below will decide the suit untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order and in this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, Judge. kkb.1/2.