IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 RSA.No. 1163 of 2010() ---------------------- AS.19/2003 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA OS.61/1999 of MUSNIFF COURT,ADOOR .................... APPELLANT/R1/PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANT IN COUNTER CLAIM --------------------------------------------------------------------- INDIAN PENTECOSTAL DAIVA SABHA, ADOOR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY TIS PRESIDENT, DISTRICT PASTOR, BENJAMIN VARGHESE, AGED 80 YEARS, DEEPAM HOME, DEEPAM LANE, KADAMBANAD VADAKKEMURI, KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KAPPILLIL ANILKUMAR SMT.K.U.MANJU RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & R2 & ADDL.R3/DEFENDANTS & PLAINTIFFS --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE INDIAN PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF GOD, CHURCH OF GOD, ADOOR EAST DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PASTOR C.M.GEORGE, KADUVINGAL HOUSE, KONNAMANKARA MURI, ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR.P.O., PIN-691 523. 2. THE INDIAN PENTECOSTAL DAIVA SABHA, REPRESENTED BY I.P.C.GENERAL PRESIDENT, PASTOR, K.M.JOSEPH, HEBRON, KUMBANAD.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 547. 3. THE INDIAN PENTECOSTAL DAIVA SABHA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, PASTOR, T.S.ABRAHAM, HEAD OFFICE: HEBRON, KUMBANAD.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. PIN-689 547. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- R.S.A No.1163OF 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 22nd day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Plaintiff in a suit for injunction has filed this appeal. His suit for injunction was decreed by the trial court negativing the contentions raised by the defendant who had set up a counter claim of injunction in the suit. That counter claim was also turned down by the trial court while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant preferred two appeals separately, one against the decreeing of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and the other against the dismissal of his counter claim. The lower appellate court, after considering both the appeals together reversed the decree of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff and nonsuited him. Challenge raised against the dismissal of the counter claim by way of an appeal was found meritless, and accordingly, the appeal thereof was dismissed. Plaintiff has preferred two Second Appeals against the decision rendered in the two appeals by the lower appellate court as indicated above. The appeal preferred by him as R.S.A No.352/2010 as against the decision rendered by the lower appellate court reversing the decree granted in his favour by the trial court, after condonation of delay in preferring such appeal, now awaits hearing and orders on its admissibility. R.S.A No.1163 of 2010 : 2 : 2. The present appeal, R.S.A No.1163/2010, is against the dismissal of the appeal A.S No.19/2003 preferred by the defendant challenging the declining of the counter claim of injunction raised in the suit. As to how the appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the defendant, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal has been filed by way of abundant caution apprehending that some of the observations made by the courts below with respect to the counter claim may cause him prejudice in canvassing the merit of the other appeal. I do not find any merit in the apprehension expressed by the counsel. Since the appeal preferred by the defendant as against the decision turning down his counter claim had been dismissed, the appellant/plaintiff cannot be considered in any way aggrieved by that decision. On that solitary ground itself, his appeal preferred against the decision rendered by the lower appellate court in A.S No.19/2003 does not merit any consideration. Such being the position, the petition moved for condoning the delay with this appeal also does not require to be considered on its merits and both the petition and the appeal are rejected as not maintainable. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge vdv