IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 FAO.No. 130 of 2011() ---------------------------------- (I.A.NO.418/2011 IN O.S.NO.57/2011 OF SUB COURT, CHERTHALA) ..... APPELLANT:(PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF IN THE I.A.): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- USHA DEVI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O. RAGHUNATH, KULAKKATTUPADAM NIKARTH, KALAVAMKODAM PO, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS IN THE I.A.): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEER, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.SAHADEVAN, DEVASOM CHIRAYIL, KALAVAMKODAM PO, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA - 688 536. 2. SMITHA D.DEV, D/O.SAHADEVAN, DEVASOM CHIRAYIL, KALAVAMKODAM PO, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA - 688 536. BY ADV. MR.K.C. CHARLES (CAVEATOR). THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F.A.O. No. 130 of 2011 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/ Caveator. 2. The plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale is the appellant. He sought an order for temporary injunction. Though an ad interim order was granted, that was vacated. The learned counsel for the appellant states that, after the impugned order was issued, the court below had kept it in abeyance for some time. FAO No.130/2011 : 2 : 3. We looked into the impugned order. We find that the court below has perused the materials on record and has entered findings which may tend to impair a just, reasonable and proper trial. We say so because the court below has expressed certain views on the agreement which is produced by the plaintiff. 4. With the findings made by the learned Judge, we are of the view that the impugned order has to stand in so far as the dismissal of the prayer for temporary injunction is concerned. But, learned counsel for the appellant is justified in pointing out that the views expressed in the impugned order would tend to impair the trial. Thoughtfully considering that submission in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, we are of the view that the court below has to decide the suit finally untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order. FAO No.130/2011 : 3 : We direct that it shall be done. The appeal ordered confirming the impugned order, but directing that the court below shall decide the suit finally untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) aks/11.04 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge