IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 FAO.No. 60 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/02/2009 IN IA.1844/2008 IN OS.284/2008 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- RAVEENDRAN NAIR.K., @ RAVIKUMAR, PROPRIETOR, M/S.REAL TECH ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS, RESIDING AT SAYANTHANAM, KANJIKUZY, MUTTAMBALAM KARA, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------- THULASI, S/O.RAGHUNATHAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PADMASREE HOTEL, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, RESIDING AT PRASANNA HOUSE, AVANAVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- F.A.O. No.60 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- DATED:MARCH 25, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is an appeal against an order refusing to grant injunction as sought for by the appellant. The appellant is the plaintiff in OS No.284/2008, a suit for money, on various counts. In that he filed an application seeking to restrain the defendant/respondent from engaging the sub-contractor of the appellant and also from using the materials stocked in the premises by the appellant/petitioner. The case of the appellant is tht he entered into a contract with the defendant for construction of a three star hotel and he has completed substantial portion of the building and since payment was not effected, he instituted the suit. In the meanwhile, steps were alleged to have been taken by the defendant to engage the sub contractor of the petitioner and also making use of the materials stocked by him. It is for that purpose injunction was sought for. The court below dismissed the injunction application after F.A.O. No.60 of 2009 :2: elaborate consideration of the matter. 2. We have perused the order passed by the court below. Even though we cannot disagree with the operative portion of the order, we, however, find that some of the observations are unnecessary for the limited purpose of disposing of the I.A. It is apprehended by the petitioner that such observation made by the court below may influence the mind of the court in finally adjudicating the dispute in the suit. We make it clear that whatever observation made by the court below is only for the limited purpose of disposal of the interim application. Untrammelled by any such observation, the issues raised in the suit shall be decided independently based on the evidence adduced by the parties. Subject to the above observation, the FAO is disposed of. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-