IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 FAO.No. 245 of 2011() --------------------- OS.27/2011 of SUB COURT,ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- R. MOHANAN NAIR, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, RESIDING AT "PRANAVAM", CHENKOTTUKONAM, CHEMPAZHANTHY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.MANU V. RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ------------------------ MRS. LALITHAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O. AMMUKUTTY AMMA, RESIDING AT LALITHA MANDIRAM, PULLANNIVILA, THUNDATHIL(PO),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-605581. ADV. SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN FOR R-1 SRI.R.T.PRADEEP FOR R-1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * F.A.O.No.245 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.JOSEPH,J The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.27/2011 and applicant in I.A.No.293/2011. I.A.No.293/2011 was filed seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the property. The court below granted temporary injunction; but after hearing both sides, vacated the impugned order. It is, aggrieved by the same, that the plaintiff is before us. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. As per the stand taken originally in the written statement, the defendant/respondent was agreeable for selling the property on 'as is where is' condition. 3. Today when the matter came up, it is the case of the respondent that though opportunities were given, the plaintiff was not ready to purchase the property. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that he was all along ready to purchase the property and even at present. But, F.A.O.No.245 of 2011 2 at any rate, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that there is a subsequent development and that the respondent has moved an application to amend the written statement to incorporate the plea that he does not intend to sell the property. In other words, the learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that the respondent will not alienate the property. Both sides pray that the suit may be disposed of at the earliest. We dispose of the appeal recording the undertaking given on behalf of the respondent that the respondent will not alienate the property. The trial court will dispose of the suit finally on or before the closure of the court for Onam vacation in 2012 untrammeled by any observations made by the court below and this Court. (K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge F.A.O.No.245 of 2011 3 F.A.O.No.245 of 2011 4 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010