IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 274 of 2010()
1. BIJI, AGED 38,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PYAPSI, D/O.BRIJITH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
For Respondent :SRI.R.S.KALKURA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :01/02/2011
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
F.A.O.No.274 of 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2011.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This is an appeal against an order refusing an
order of temporary prohibitory injunction. The
plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of a
contract for sale sought for a prohibitory as
well as mandatory injunction against the owner of
the property. The court below found that though
the defendant admits receipt of advance under the
control for sale, there were no grounds to grant
any order of injunction against further
transactions.
2.At the stage of admission, we had granted an
interim order on I.A.No.3340/2010 to the effect
that there would be a temporary injunction
FAO274/10 -: 2 :-
restraining the respondent from alienating the
suit property and from encumbering the same for a
period of four months on condition that the
appellant produces before the court below a fixed
deposit receipt drawn on a nationalized bank in
his name for the balance sale consideration in
terms of the plaint. This was in a way testing
the bonafides of the appellant. Since the matter
is yet to go for trial, we do not want to say
anything finally on it. But, the fact of the
matter remains that even as on today, no fixed
deposit receipt is provided before the court
below, though the appellant had enjoyed the
benefits of the interim order for four months.
3.For the reasons recorded by the learned
Subordinate Judge and on the basis of the
materials on record, we do not find any reason to
hold that there is a prima facie case warranting
the issuance of a temporary injunction as prayed
for before the court below. This is
notwithstanding the fact that the court below has
FAO274/10 -: 3 :-
recorded that the defendant admits receipt of
part of the sale consideration.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed
with costs.
Sd/-
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
Sd/-
P.S.Gopinathan,
Judge.
Sha/0302
-true copy-
P.S.to Judge.