AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Joseph, J.—Appellants call in question the order passed by the Sub Court, Kattappana in I.A. No. 325/2011 in O.S. 93/2011. O.S. 93/2011 was filed by the appellants for setting aside 3 sale deeds executed in favour of the defendants and for prohibitory injunction. Appellants also filed interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction. The said application has been dismissed. Hence, the appeal. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned senior counsel for the respondents. No doubt, the case of the appellants in brief is that this is a case where the alienation was made in favour of the defendants at a time there were orders passed by the Company Law Board as also by the Provident Fund Commissioner. Learned counsel for the appellants would also has a complaint that property having an extent of 34 acres was sold for a consideration of Rs. 10 lakhs in all. It is the further case of the appellants that possession has not been transferred to the alienees.
Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents would support the order and would say that there is no basis at all for interference. He would submit that O.S. No. 127/2010 was filed by the Ist respondent and injunction was granted by the Munsiff Court, Peerumedu in respect of A- Schedule property in the suit. Appeal carried from the same was also dismissed. What is more the Court also granted police protection. Learned counsel for the appellants would point out that the concurrent orders passed by the Munsiff Court and the First Appellate Court came to be challenged in O.P. (C) No. 2152/2012. The Court had directed the said suit to be disposed of untrammelled by anything contained in the impugned orders and that the parties will be bound by Exts.P5 and P6 orders in W.P. (C) No.26308/2010. More importantly, the learned senior counsel for the respondents wold submit that the respondents will not transfer or encumber the plaint schedule properties in O.S. 93/2011 till the disposal of the said suit. It is submitted that an affidavit will be filed before the Sub court, Kattappana within a period of two weeks from today undertaking that the respondents will not transfer or encumber the plaint schedule properties till the disposal of the suit. In the light of this we think that no further orders are required. We dispose of the appeal as follows:
(i). We record the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that the respondents will file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit that the respondents will not transfer or encumber the plaint schedule properties in O.S. No. 93/2011 before the Sub Court, Kattappana till the disposal of the suit within two weeks from today.
(ii). The Sub Court, Kattappana will dispose of the suit finally untrammelled by the observations made in the impugned order.
(iii). In the facts of this case, we direct that the Sub Court, Kattappana will make every effort to dispose of the suit at the earliest and at any rate before the closure of the Courts for summer vacation-2013. We make it clear that, we have not pronounced or considered the merits of the impugned order in view of the stand of the respondents that an undertaking will be filed as aforesaid.