IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 FAO.No. 119 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/03/2011 IN IA 2772011 IN AS.34/2010 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT: ------------------ MINI ABRAHAM, PUTHEN MADATHIL VEEDU, THUKALASSERY MURI, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU SRI.TITUS MANI RESPONDENTS ----------------------- 1. ALEYAMMA JOY, MADATHILAZHIKATHU VEEDU, THIRUVALLA P.O. THIRUVALLA 689 101. 2. ABRAHAM JOY, -DO- -DO- 3. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA-689 101. 4. ADDITIONAL THASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA- 689 10. 5. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA- 689 10 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- F.A.O. NO. 119 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the order in I.A.No.277/2011 in A.S.No.34/2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. Respondents herein are plaintiffs in O.S.No.327/2005 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvalla. The appellant herein is the lst defendant in the suit. Respondents 3 to 6 herein are Taluk Surveyor, Additional Tahsildar, Tahsildar and State of Kerala. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the appellant/defendant and other officials from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, from measuring item Nos.1 and 2 properties, from installing any survey stones or from putting up the boundary. The suit was tried and dismissed by the trial court. The plaintiff preferred A.S.No.34/2010 before the Sub Court, Thiruvalla. He also moved I.A.No.277/2011 for temporary -2- F.A.O.No.119/2011 injunction. The Appellate Court passed the impugned order restraining the Taluk Surveyor and other officials from taking any steps for measuring the plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/lst defendant submits that the observation of the court below in the impugned order that no serious objection is raised by the respondents is not correct. The learned counsel also submits that the appellant has very serious objection in the matter of granting injunction in a case where the trial court considered the contentions of the parties and dismissed the suit rejecting the prayer of the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submits that he is pressing for a limited prayer to dispose of A.S.No.34/2010 within a time frame. The appellant is satisfied with the disposal of the appeal within a time frame. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appeal can be disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents. The appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sub Judge, -3- F.A.O.No.119/2011 Thiruvalla to dispose of A.S.No.34/2010 within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Court has not examined the legality of the order passed in IA.No.277/2011. In view of the disposal of the appeal as aforesaid, the interim order passed by the learned Sub Judge shall continue till the disposal of the appeal. Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.