IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 FAO.No. 259 of 2008 ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2008 IN IA.NO.449/2008 IN OS.NO.34/2008 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA. .................... APPELLANT: ------------------- T.P.ANIL KUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O KRISHNAN, NAYANAM HOUSE, MAYYANNUR P.O., VILLIAPPALLY AMSOM AND MAYYANNUR DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADVS. MR.SHYAM PADMAN, MR.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN, MR.S.K.SAJU. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- MULLANKATTIL RAZAK, AGED 35 YEARS, BUSINESS, S/O MAMMU HAJI, PUTHUKKODE PARAMBATH HOUSE, KUTTIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA STATE. BY ADVS. MR.DEVIDAS.U.K, MR.K.K. ANIL RAJ. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: F.A.O.NO.259/2008: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 4306/2008 IN F.A.O. NO.259/2008 DISMISSED SD/- P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE. 03/02/2010. SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.R.RAMAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ C.M. Application No.1968 of 2008 & F.A.O.No.259 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT P.R.RAMAN,J. C.M. Application No.1968 of 2008 Heard delay condoned. F.A.O.No.259 of 2008 Heard both sides. This is an appeal arising out of an order passed by the Subordinate Judges Court, Vadakara in I.A.No.449/2008 in O.S.No.34/2008. The appellant is the defendant in the suit and the respondent in the said I.A. The suit is one for specific performance of the contract. 2. I.A.No.449/2008 was filed for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Eventually, after hearing the parties and after considering the rival submissions and after referring to the documents produced in the case, C.M. Appn. No.1968 of 2008 & F.A.O.No.259 of 2008 :: 2 :: the court below, being satisfied of a prima facie case and taking into consideration the balance of convenience also, granted the temporary injunction has sought for restraining the appellant herein not to alienate the property during the pendency of the suit. 3. When the matter was taken up, it was fairly submitted by both sides that the case is posted for hearing during next week. Further, being a suit for specific performance, when the court is satisfied of the prima facie case, there is nothing wrong in granting an order to maintain status quo. However, it has to be observed that any finding entered into by the court for the limited purpose of disposing of the interlocutory application for the purpose of finding a prima facie case, cannot influence the mind of the court while trying the issue in the main suit. C.M. Appn. No.1968 of 2008 & F.A.O.No.259 of 2008 :: 3 :: Accordingly, subject to the above observations, this appeal is dismissed. However, we direct that the court below may expedite the trial and dispose of the suit at the earliest. Sd/- (P.R.RAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE SK/- //true copy//