IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN HURSDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 18TH BHADRA 1932 FAO.No. 190 of 2010() --------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15/06/2010 IN IA.2147/2010 IN OS.404/2010 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM) .................... APPELLANTS:COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVAPALAN NAIR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, KUZHINKKARA PANAYIL, ARAYANKUZHI AYAKKARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUKUMARAN NAIR, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, KUZHINKKARA PANAYIL, ARAYANKUZHI AYAKKARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THANKAMANI, D/O.JAGADAMMA, KUZHINKKARA PANAYIL, ARAYANKUZHI AYAKKARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. BABY, D/O.JAGADAMMA, KUZHINKKARA PANAYIL, ARAYANKUZHI AYAKKARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 5. MAHESWARI, D/O.JAGADAMMA, KUZHINKKARA PANAYIL, ARAYANKUZHI AYAKKARA, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SANTHAMMA, W/O.LATE GOPINATHAN NAIR, SARITHA BHAVAN, T.C.43/656, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. S.KUMARI SARITHA, D/O.SANTHAMMA, SARITHA BHAVAN, T.C.43/656, KAMALESWARAM, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .........2/-.... ....2.... 8. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, SAI SADANAM, ARALUMMOODU, THALAYAL DESOM, ATHIYANOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------- RAJESH KUMAR, S/O.BABU, HIMAGIRI, KALADI, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN. 698 009. BY ADVS. SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- F.A.O.No.190 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of September, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is filed by the defendants against the order of temporary injunction passed by the court below in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. Though any transfer of property pending suit would have been only lis pendens, the plaintiff wanted an order of temporary injunction. The court below found a strong prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. However, on the defendants appeal, we are satisfied that such an order ought not to have been granted except on terms. One of the foremost conditions to be established in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale is that the plaintiff has sufficient means and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. We, therefore, wanted the counsel for the plaintiff to state whether the plaintiff would be prepared to deposit the balance FAO.190/10 2 consideration. The plaintiff's counsel, on consent of his client, offers that the balance consideration which comes to Rs.77,75,000/- would be deposited before the court below within a period of one month. We direct that such amount shall be provided in the form of F.D. Receipt in the name of the plaintiff from a nationalised bank and let such receipt be produced before the court below instead of making deposit. If such F.D. receipt is not produced within the period of one month from now, the impugned order of injunction will stand vacated. If such receipt is made, the court below will consider expediting disposal of the case after considering the rival contentions. Being a suit for specific performance, the court below will also consider whether there is an element of settlement requiring appropriate procedure under Section 89 of the CPC to take recourse to mediation. If that fails, the court below will expedite final disposal of the suit. The appeal is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN, Judge. kkb.16/09.