IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 FAO.No. 40 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/12/2007 IN IA 3096/07 IN OS.489/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------ KAMALUDHEEN, S/O. KADAMBOTT VEETTIL HYDROSE, AGED 50 YEARS, KARUKUTTY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT: ----------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE, S/O. NETTIKADAN CHAKYARU, MEELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM. 2. JOHNSON, S/O. NETTIKADAN CHAKYARU, MEELOOR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------------- F.A.O.NO.40 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman, J. This appeal is filed against the order passed by the court below dismissing the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff. Appellant is the plaintiff, who instituted the suit for specific performance of the agreement said to have been executed between the parties. The court below by the impugned order held that balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred. 2. In paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the plaint schedule property had already been assigned on 6/2/2008. However, the details regarding the same is not furnished. 3. In the circumstances, we direct that in case the property is not already alienated or encumbered, status quo be maintained by the respondents herein till the disposal of the suit. The court below shall dispose of the suit in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties. -2- F.A.O.No.40/2008 It is prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant Sri S.Sreekumar that it may be clarified that the observation contained in the order impugned shall not influence the mind of the court while adjudicating the matter. Needless to say that this being only an interim injunction application and as such whatever finding entered into is only based on a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and the main suit is to be decided on merits. Appeal is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. kcv.