Kerala High Court
FAO/356/2011 of KANAKAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs SANDHY RADHA KRISHNAN AND ANOTHER on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 FAO.No. 356 of 2011 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.233/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
FAO.No. 356 of 2011
-----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OS.233/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOLLAM DATED 08-11-2011
APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. KANAKAMMA,
PATTATHUVILA VEEDU, PATTATHANATHU CHERRY, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. PATTATHANATHU CHERRY, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM.
2. VINOD,
PATTATHUVILA VEEDU, PATTATHANATHU CHERRY, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.JOHNSON K.KURIEN
RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS/PETITIONERS: -
------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SANDHYA RADHA KRISHNAN, SWATHY, MUSALIAR NAGAR - 73, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER HOLDER USHA SUDHEER.
2. USHA SUDHEER,
ROYAL PALMS, OPPOSITS SANADU, VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.K.G.BINDU
R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =F.A.O No.356 of 2011= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
This appeal is against an order passed on 8.11.2011 grantingtemporary prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants in a suit forspecific performance of a contract for sale from trespassing into the plaintproperty, committing mischief therein, inducting strangers into it and fromalienating or encumbering the property by any means till the disposal of thesuit.
2. The plea of the plaintiffs is that pursuant to the contract for saleunder which entire consideration was received as advance, they were put inpossession. The first defendant set up a case of a document in which he isshown to be in possession.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and havingperused the impugned order, we think that it would be wise for the parties tohave the trial concluded expeditiously, now that the situation noticed abovecontinues to hold for more than one year. On query, we are also told that the FAO356/12
Commissioner's report and other documents are on board and the firstplaintiff has already been examined as PW1. In this situation, we are of thefirm view that the situation now obtained can continue and the trial ought tobe concluded at the earliest.
In the result, this appeal is closed without entering on, or expressingon the merits, however, directing the parties to participate in trial, byappearing before the court below on the next posting date. The court belowwill give the parties, opportunity to adduce evidence and shall decide thecase untrammelled by anything stated in the order impugned in this appealand in this judgment. The office will transmit the lower court records to thecourt below at the earliest with copy of this judgment. No costs.
sd/-THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE
sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAIJUDGE
krj.31/12
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE