IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 680 of 2011(O) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.274/2011 IN OS.53/2009 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER : -------------------- K.B.ULLAS, 'ZINSARA' COTTAGE, KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- SEENA, THIRUVONAM VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA, KOLLAM-691604. ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE FOR R THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OPC 680/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.NO.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM DATED 19.1.2009. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 26.2.2009 IN O.S.NO.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.36/2011 DATED 4.1.2011 IN O.S.No.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 12.12.2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.1.2011 IN O.S.NO.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION, I.A.419/2011 DATED 24.1.2011 IN O.S.NO.53/09 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.2.2009 IN O.S.NO.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. EXT.P8 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION I.A.NO.274/2011 IN O.S.NO.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM DATED 18.1.2011. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.2011 IN I.A.NO.274/2011 IN O.S.NO.53/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.(C).No.680 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed O.S.No.53 of 2009, on the file of the Sub Court, Kollam, against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement for sale in respect of the plaint schedule property. It is stated that during the pendency of the suit, Exhibit P7 order of injunction, restraining the respondent from alienating the plaint schedule property or committing waste or mischief thereon or changing the present nature of the property, was in existence. The suit was dismissed for default on 7.1.2011. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit. That application is pending. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.274 of 2011 to keep in abeyance the order dismissing the suit for default. The court below as per Exhibit P9 order dated 20th January, 2011 rejected that application, which is under challenge in this Original Petition. O.P.(C) No.680/2011 2 2. The order passed by the court below does not appear to be incorrect. The suit was dismissed and there was nothing to be kept in abeyance. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with Exhibit P9 order passed by the court below. 3. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit and it is pending. The petitioner apprehends that the respondent may alienate the plaint schedule property, in which case the petitioner would be put to irreparable injury. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent has no intention to sell or alienate the property and that the respondent undertakes not to sell or alienate or part with the possession of the property. This undertaking is recorded. The trial court shall dispose of the application for restoration expeditiously. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl