IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/1ST POUSHA 1933 FAO.No. 290 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------------- ( I.A. NO.1545/2011 IN I.A.NO.8769/2011 & I.A.NO.1545/2011 IN OS NO.1343 /2009 OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.) --------------------- APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER (1ST DEFENDANT) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- BIJU RAMESH, SON OF SRI.RAMESAN AGED 45, RESIDING AT T.C. 37/852, FORT P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SRI.R.S.MADHU SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER (PLAINTIFF) & 2ND CR.PETITIONER (2ND DEFENDANT) ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 M.SAIFUDEEN,AGED ABOUT 66, SON OF MOHAMMED ALI RESIDING AT T.C.13/1247, SAINA, KUMARAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011 2 THE KARNATAKA BANK MAIN BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER - 695 001 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: NK THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------- F.A.O. Nos. 276 & 290 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd December, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. Sri.Nair Ajay Krishnan and Sri.R.T.Pradeep take notice for respondents. Heard. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents quite in extenso on the different aspects of the matter. The moot issue between the parties is whether a particular document is, in fact, a sale or whether it could be characterised as a security document. 3. We have gone through the discussion as reflected in the impugned order. The effort taken in this regard could have necessarily led to final adjudication, since documents were produced, Commissioner was deputed and reports were also filed. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the F.A.O. 276 &290/11 2 trial court could take up the main matter for final disposal at the earliest. The impugned order has been issued on the basis of Exts.C1 and C2 reports. Learned Judge found that the Commissioner has reported all relevant aspects in regard to different movables like chairs, tables etc. We are, therefore, of the view that the court below is justified in ordering parties to maintain status quo as on the date of Ext.C2 report dated 29.3.2011. The order of temporary injunction against alienation is also well-founded having regard to the issues arising in the suit. That order of injunction has been issued on I.A. 8769/09, wrongly shown as I.A.1347/09, in the last paragraph of the impugned order. Obviously, restoration of status quo ante would not arise as of now. Therefore, no further work or maintenance can be carried out in the building in question until final disposal of the suit. 4. Learned Subordinate Judge will list the matter for final disposal in the special list at the earliest and let the parties adduce further evidence, if any, including oral evidence. The matter shall thereupon be decided on merits within a period of F.A.O. 276 &290/11 3 six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The court below shall dispose of the suit untrammelled by any of the observations made in this judgment. F.A.Os are ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. Krs.