IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 254 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1940/2008 IN OS.201/2008 of PRL.S.C.,THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF(S): ------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O. AHAMMED HUSSAIN, CONTRACTOR, KOLLAM VILLAGE PUNATHALACHERIYIL, THIRUMULLA VARAM KAITHAVARAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- A.P.MUHAMMED KHASIM, S/O.ABOOBACKER KURICHIYIL DESOM, KODIYERI AMSOM ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 254 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A. 1940 of 2008 in O.S. 201 of 2008, petitioner before the court below has come up in appeal. 2. The suit is one for specific performance. Along with the suit I.A. 1940 of 2008 was filed seeking an interim injunction against alienation of the property by the respondent. An ad interim injunction was prayed for. Respondent entered appearance and filed his counter affidavit. According to the respondent, the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract inspite of repeated reminders sent by him. Therefore the suit should fail. He denied that there was any failure on his part. 3. It is seen that the respondent filed the counter affidavit on 17.7.2008 and was ready to argue the matter. The matter was got adjourned by counsel for the petitioner. Later it F.A.O. 254/2008.. 2 was found that the respondent had sold the property to third party and therefore held that the interlocutory application has become infructuous and dismissed the application. The said order is assailed in this appeal. 4. As already noticed, the suit is one for specific performance. Interim relief sought for was against alienation during the pendency of the suit. The court below found that the property had already been sold and therefore there was no need to grant the interim order as prayed for. The court below was also right in holding that the the petition has become infructuous. Whether the transfer is covered by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is a matter, which could be considered at the time of disposal of the suit. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the court below. The appeal is without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.