IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 OP(C).No. 1225 of 2011(O) ------------------------- OS.71/2009 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... PETITIONER ------------------- THOMAS SEBASTIAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE DEVASSYA, ARAYATHINAL HOUSE, PATHAMPUZHA KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JINU JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ANIYAMMA SEBASTIAN, W/O. NEPHER @ WALTER, AGED 59 YEARS, ARAYATHINAL HOUSE, MANNAM KARA, POONJAR THEKKEKARA VILLAGE-686 582, KOTTAYAM, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 2A 5620, BREMGARTON AIG, WOBLER STREET, SWITZERLAND. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ O.P(C).No.1225 OF 2011 ------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.71 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pala against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale of the plaint schedule property. It is stated that the respondent avoided service of summons on her in the suit. An interim order of injunction was passed by the court below restraining the respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property. It is stated that notice in that Injunction Application was also not served on the respondent as she avoided service of notice. It is alleged that the respondent having full knowledge about the order of injunction, transferred the property to her brother and on the next day entered appearance in the suit. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1676 of 2010 under Rule 2A O.P(C).No.1225 OF 2011 2 of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. He also filed I.A.No.1926 of 2010 making a prayer to take evidence in I.A.No.1676 of 2010 before the trial of the suit. The grievance of the petitioner is that without passing any orders in I.A.Nos.1676 of 2010 and 1926 of 2010, the court below posted the case for trial in the special list to 2.4.2011. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the court will not give much importance to the application under Rule 2A of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner. I do not think that the apprehension of the petitioner is well founded. The court below might have thought that the application could be considered in the light of the evidence in the case so that both parties will get an opportunity to adduce evidence touching upon I.A.No.1676 of 2010 as well. It cannot be said that the court below committed an error of law or jurisdictional error O.P(C).No.1225 OF 2011 3 warranting interference. The suit is now posted for trial on 2.4.2011 and it is not necessary to admit this Original petition and issue notice to the respondent. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed with the above observations. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms