IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2106 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1771/2011 IN OP.524/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. BINOJ MATHEW, MANU MANDIRAM, AREEPLACHI, MAVILA MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM REPRESENTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.K.MATHEW, MANU MANDIRAM, AREEPLACHI, MAVILA MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM 2. LALU ROY, S/O.JOSHWA, LALU SADANMAM, AREEPLACHI, MAVILA MURI, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA RESPONDENT: --------------------- ANIMOLE RAJAN, W/O.RAJAN CHANDY, APPAKKODU PUTHEN VEEDU, AREEPLACHI, MAVILA, ANCHAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691306 BY THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- OP (FC).No. 2106 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 3891/2009 IN OP NO. 1013/2009 DATED 1.1.2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P. 1285/2010 DATED 12.02.2010 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PUNALUR 1. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 942/2010 IN O.S. NO. 170/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PUNALUR. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 1771/2011 IN O.P. NO. 524/2010 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 02.06.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * O.P.(F.C) No.2106 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July 2011 J U D G M E N T Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioners challenge Ext.P4 order of temporary injunction restraining them from committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property and from making any conveyance or agreement to convey the property till disposal of the original petition. 2. While the petitioners refer to different other proceedings in which, according to them, the property in question was kept out of different prohibitory orders, we do not find that the petitioners had filed any objections to the application before the court below. The impugned order does not reflect any such objection. Original petition also does not contain any pleading about any such objection having been filed. If the impugned order is only an ad interim order, it may be open to the petitioners to seek relief even before that court by O.P.(F.C) No.2106/2011 2 recourse to principles contained in Rule 4 of Order 39 of Code of Civil Procedure. However, without saying even as to whether they had objected to the application, we do not find it worthwhile to interfere with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, the original petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed in limini. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge