IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 FAO.No. 182 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2008 IN IA 251/2008 IN OS.45/2008 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS : DEFENDANTS ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. CONSERVATOOR OF FORESTS, O/O.THE CONVERVATOR OF FORESTS CENTRAL CIRCLE, VANAPRIYA FOREST COMPLEX, PARAVATTANI, THRISSUR. 4. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, CHALAKKUDY 5. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PALAPPILLY, VARANDARAPPALY PO., THRISSUR 6. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, VELLIKULANGARA PO, PADY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI D. ANILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- M/S.HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD., BRISTOW ROAD, WILLINGDON ISLAND, COCHIN-682003, REP. BY CHIEF MANAGER, LEGAL V.VENUGOPAL BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: I.A. NO.3001/08 DISMISSED. 4/8/2008 SD/- P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. SD/- T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No.182 of 2008 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. This is an appeal at the instance of the State who are the defendants in the suit, O.S. No.45/2008 pending before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda, instituted by the respondent as plaintiff. 2. An extent of 6063.19 acres of forest land in Varantharappilly village was leased out to the plaintiff/respondent for rubber cultivation. There is an allegation of violation of the lease conditions by the plaintiff which gave rise to an order being passed by the Government fastening some liability on the plaintiff. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that no amount is due and payable by them and for other consequential reliefs. They also sought for an injunction restraining the Government from proceeding to recover any amount based on the order impugned. The court below, by the order impugned in this appeal, has granted an injunction as sought for and aggrieved by the same, the State has filed this appeal. FAO 182/2008 -2- 3. Heard both sides. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of the land cultivated with rubber. Whether or not there was any violation of the lease conditions, is a matter which is pending consideration in the suit. Admittedly, the forest land is cultivated with rubber yielding profit to the plaintiff. While granting an injunction as sought for, the consideration which should weigh with the mind of the court are: (i) a primfacie case; and (ii) balance of convenience. Even if a primafacie case is made out, it is not an invariable rule of law that a blanket injunction as sought for should be granted. While granting an injunction against recovery which is the subject matter of the suit, the balance of convenience to be considered is as to what will happen if ultimately the suit is dismissed. In that regard, while granting an injunction as sought for, the court below ought to have insisted for some security from the plaintiff for the amount which is sought to be recovered. 5. Therefore, in partial modification of the order passed by the court below, we sustain the order of injunction, but on condition that the respondent shall furnish security to the satisfaction of the court below within a period of one month from today, failing which, the injunction order FAO 182/2008 -3- will stand vacated. The appeal is disposed of with the above modifications. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/