IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2009 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1931 FAO.No. 247 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2004 IN IA 978/04 IN OS.33/2004 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIOENRS/ADDITIONAL DEFNTS.3 & 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMA ITTAN, W/O.VARKEY ITTAN, KOOMULLUMKUNNEL HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA & VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GEORGE ABRAHAM, S/OV.ARKEY ITTAN, KOOMULLUMKUNNEL HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA & VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF/DEFENDANTS. ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. REGI.V.PAUL,S/O.PAULOSE, VEEPPANATTU HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. MARY, W/O./BABY PAUL, VEEPPANATTU HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. BABY, S/O.PAULOSE, VEEPPANATTU HOUSE, KEERAMPARA KARA AND VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKUALAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.N.RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.P.VISWANATHAN FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 247 of 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, The case was posted in the defect list since respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not served. First respondent has entered appearance. The suit O.S. 33 of 2004 itself is for a declaration of title over the plaint schedule property and for a declaration that the document executed by the second defendant in November, 2003 is null and void and not binding on the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession. During the pendency of the suit, defendants 3 and 4 sought an injunction against the plaintiff. 2. The court below by order dated 23rd September, 2004 dismissed an interim injunction application. Four years have elapsed thereafter. During the pendency of this appeal no interim order was passed. In the above circumstances, we do not find that at this distance of time any direction regarding FAO. 247/2004.. 2 status quo could be ordered. If the suit is still pending, it will be expedited. Appeal is dismissed. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.