IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 FAO.No. 200 of 2009 ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.7906/2007 IN OS.1295/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------- ASHA AMBATTU, W/O.PULIKKOTTIL EDISON, MULA DESOM, MANALITHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: -------------------------------------------------- FR.ELIYAS, S/O.AMBATTU JOSEPH, MULA DESOM, MANALITHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, A/W FAO.290/08,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ F. A. O. Nos.290 of 2008 & 200 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J Under challenge in both these appeals is the common order passed by the Sub Court, Thrissur in I.A. Nos.7906/07 and 2431/08 in O.S. No.1295/07. The petitioner in I.A.7906/07 who is the plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. I.A.7906/07 was filed by her seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent/her own father from alienating the suit property and also from altering the lie and nature of the plaint schedule properties and also from causing any hindrance to the plaintiff and her men to reside in the house situated on item No.2 of the plaint schedule F. A. O. Nos.290 of 2008 & 200 of 2009 -2- and also from taking the yield from the property. I.A.2431/08 was filed by the respondent herein for a temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff (the appellant) from causing obstructions to the petitioner therein from residing in the petition schedule building situated in item No.2 of the plaint schedule and also from taking yield from the property and also to restrain the defendant from alienating and encumbering the property till the final disposal of the suit. Answering I.A.7906/07, an affidavit was submitted by the respondent undertaking that he will not alienate the plaint schedule property and that the illegalities apprehended by the petitioner will not be committed by him. It is noticing the undertaking that the learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.7906/07. F. A. O. Nos.290 of 2008 & 200 of 2009 -3- Obviously, a similar undertaking was not furnished by the appellant in I.A.2431/08. The learned Judge under the impugned order has obviously found that the respondent is in residential occupation of the building and that he is in physical control of the property and is a person who has been taking yield from the property. The learned Judge has obviously taken into account the situation that the property originally belonged to the respondent. The learned Judge under the impugned order granted injunction sought by the respondents in I.A.2431/08. 2. Smt.Daisy A. Philipose, the learned counsel for the appellant addressed us very extensively and strenuously on the various grounds raised in the memoranda of appeal assailing the decision of the F. A. O. Nos.290 of 2008 & 200 of 2009 -4- learned Subordinate Judge under the impugned orders. Sri.G.Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the respondent on the contrary would support the impugned orders on the reasons stated by the learned Judge. We, however, are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter. After all, it is only an interlocutory order which is passed by the learned Judge. We are told that the suit is ripe for trial. We dispose of both the appeals directing the learned Subordinate Judge to special list the suit for trial in the earliest available special list, if possible in the month of December itself; to try the suit on a day to day basis and finally dispose of the suit at the earliest, and at any rate, by the 31st of January, 2010. The learned Judge will not be influenced in any manner by his own F. A. O. Nos.290 of 2008 & 200 of 2009 -5- findings in the impugned orders. The learned Judge will always remind himself that the finding entered into the impugned orders are provisional findings entered into for the purpose of deciding the I.As only. The suit will be decided on the basis of the evidence which comes on record in the suit. The present arrangement regarding the residential occupation and collection of yield will be retained till the suit is finally disposed of subject to the final outcome of the suit. 3. Smt.Daisy complains that though there is a direction in the impugned order that the respondent shall render accounts for the income collected from the properties, till date no accounts have been rendered. It is made clear that the respondent shall be bound to comply with the directions in the impugned F. A. O. Nos.290 of 2008 & 200 of 2009 -6- order regarding rendition of accounts to the court regarding the income collected from the suit property. Accounts should be furnished on a fortnightly basis. 4. These appeals are disposed of with the above directions. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE kns/-