IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 117 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/11/2003 IN IA 3572/2000 IN OS.311/1999 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF. C.AMBUJAKSHI AMMA, D/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT SREE VIHAR, CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS. 1. M/S/INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER, PANAMPALLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, P.O.KOCHI 682 036. 2. M/S.GEMINI SERVICE STATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, T.C.ROAD, CHIRAKKARA, THALASSERY. R1 BY SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR & ADV. SMT.PRIYA KRISHNAMOORTHY. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = F.A.O. NO. 117/2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2009. J U D G M E N T Bhavadasan,, J. The appellant instituted O.S.311/1999 before the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery for a declaration that clause 1(j) of the agreement dated 24.10.1968 between herself and the first respondent is void and not binding on her. Along with the said suit she filed I.A. 4096/1999 seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing any structures in the plaint schedule property. The trial court ordered notice to the respondents as they had filed a caveat. Later, when the respondents started certain construction work, according to the appellant, she brought up the interlocutory application for hearing and after taking notice of the situation, the court below directed the parties to maintain status quo. Even though the respondents were interdicted from making any new construction, they were permitted to complete the roofing, painting etc. Accusing that the respondents have violated the status quo order, the FAO 117/2005 :2: appellant filed I.A. 3572/2000 seeking to initiate proceeding against them under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court below found that the appellant was unable to substantiate her contention regarding violation of the order and therefore dismissed the application I.A. 3572/2000. The said order is challenged in this appeal. 2. It is understood that the suit itself has been dismissed on the same day. True, the dismissal of the suit by itself is not a ground to reject the application for taking action for violation of injunction. The court below ordered status quo on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant. After doing so, the court allowed the respondents to carry on certain constructions. There is some inconsistency in the order itself. All that the appellant relies on is a commission report to show that there is violation. True that there was a commissioner appointed, who reported that the respondents have undertaken construction work after passing of the order. But there was no convincing evidence to show that the same was done in violation of the order of status quo. Therefore, there was no materials at all to come to a conclusion that there is willful default or disobedience of the order of status quo. It was in these facts and circumstances, that the court below took the view against the appellant. No grounds are made out to FAO 117/2005 :3: interfere with the order. The appeal is without any merits and it is accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-