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 18TH MAY 2010 / 28TH VAISAKHA 1932 FAO.No. 50 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/02/2010 IN IA 1293/2008 IN OS.187/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ----------------------------------------- P.SAMAN, S/O.LATE PRAKASH NARAYANAN @ P.NARAYANAN @ NARAYANANJI, RESIDING AT BHAGEERATHAM, PANDARAM VEEDU, THEKKETHARA, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 5 TO 8: -------------------------------------------- 1. P.SOHAN, S/O.LATE P.VASANTHA. 2. P.HIMU @ HIMAGIRI, S/O.LATE P.VASANTHA. 3. P.ANU @ P.ANU KUMAR, S/O.LATE P.VASANTHA 4. P.SWATHY, D/O.LATE P.VASANTHA ALL ARE RESIDING AT VASANTHAM, PANDARAM VEEDU, THEKKETHARA, AKATHETHARA AMSOM, PALAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN FOR R1-2&4 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.823/2010 IN F.A.O.NO.50/2010 CLOSED. 18.5.2010 Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.50 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. Notice to the unserved respondent dispensed with preserving his liberty to move this court for re- hearing, if so advised. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant. He challenges an order by which the court below modified an ad interim order of temporary injunction granted in a suit for partition. At the stage of admission, this court granted an interim order in I.A.No.823/10 restraining the respondents/defendants from inducting strangers into the properties in question and from effecting any alienation in favour of persons other than the parties to the litigation. 3. The suit being one for partition and the defence being one based on exclusive title, we do not deem it appropriate that the trial of the suit is held back for long. We notice that the plaintiff filed the suit in 2008 and obtained an ad interim order and the document placed in defence is of the year 2000. F.A.O.NO.50 of 2010 :: 2 :: 4. Having heard counsel on either side, we are of the view that ends of justice would be satisfied if the interim order passed on 3.3.2010 is made absolute and the trial of the suit is expedited. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is modified and the defendants are restrained from inducting strangers into the properties in question and from effecting any alienation in favour of persons other than the parties to the litigation till a decision is taken as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to any partible right. In case he is entitled to any partible right, the court below would pass a preliminary decree accordingly. It is further ordered that the court below will consider expediting final disposal of the suit. FAO would stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//