IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 FAO.No. 264 of 2008() --------------------- OS.813/2007 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF -------------------------------------------------- ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MUHAMMED, KALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOORKENCHERRY (PO),THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT ----------------------------------- TOM, S/O.INASU, ALAPPADAN HOUSE, THIRUR DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, (PO)M.G.KAVU, THRISSUR DT. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 SMT.GEETHA P.MENON FOR R1 SRI.N.AJITH FOR R1 SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN FOR R1 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F.A.O. No. 264 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J, Appeal arises out of an order dismissing I.A. 304 of 2008 in O.S. 813 of 2007, which is an application filed by the appellant-plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from creating any encumbrance or alienating the plaint schedule property till the disposal of the suit. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Suit is one for specific performance. The court below in a single line order disposed of the matter stating that the entire advance amount have been deposited and lien noted and hence no merit. 4. Being a suit for specific performance, the return of the advance may be an alternate relief. But the main relief sought is for specific performance. The suit is still pending. In a matter like this, the guiding principle should be to see whether a prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff and whether balance of F.A.O. 264/2008. 2 convenience is in favour of the petitioner. No discussion or no consideration was made of any such question by the court below. 5. Curiously enough, it is stated that during the pendency of the suit a substantial portion of the property had been sold. At the time of admission of this appeal, this court granted an interim order restraining the respondent herein from alienating of encumbering the remaining portion of 21 and one fourth cents of property till the final disposal of the appeal. 6. The suit is still pending. In the circumstances, it is only appropriate that the said interim order will continue till the disposal of the suit. The appeal is disposed of a above. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.