IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
FAO.No. 44 of 2005()
1. M/S.SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST
... Respondent
2. C.S.I. IMMANUAL CHURCH,
3. REV.T.I.JAMES, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE
4. J.OOMMEN, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE
5. RT.REV.DR.GEORGE ISSAC,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON
For Respondent :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :26/05/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
F.A.O. No. 44 of 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Raman, J,
This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the order
dismissing an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure for temporary injunction. There are
several cases pending in civil courts between the plaintiff and
the defendants. Plaintiff had instituted a suit as O.S. No.400 of
1970 for injunction against causing obstruction to the business
of the plaintiff, which had been stated to be decreed on
8.1.1973. First defendant filed R.C.P.179 of 1970 seeking
eviction of the plaintiff. The present suit is filed for recovery
of possession of plaint A schedule building. Alleging that
without notice to the plaintiff the plaint schedule building was
completely demolished by the defendants with a view to force
the plaintiff to flee from the property, and subsequently
FAO.44/2005.. 2
attempts were made by the defendants to put up other constructions
in the property. The temporary injunction application filed was
considered by the court below in the light of Exts. A1 to A11 and
Exts.B1 to B5 and found that the plaintiff has not proved their case
and the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff.
Against which, the present appeal is filed.
2. At the time of admitting the appeal, an interim
injunction was granted restraining the respondents from putting up
any construction in B schedule property for a period of three
months. That is being extended from time to time and the same has
been extended until furthers on 14.11.2005 and continues.
3. This appeal itself is of the year 2005. In view of the
continuance of the order of injunction granted by this court, no
further orders are required except to say that the same will continue
till the disposal of the suit, if not already disposed off.
Observations, if any, made in the order impugned in this appeal is
FAO.44/2005.. 3
only for the purpose of the interim order and cannot affect the
merits of the contentions.
The appeal is allowed.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.