Disposed

Appu @ Viswambharan v. Abhishek

Kerala HC6 Dec 2013FAO/320/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal against an order dismissing an interim application in a suit for specific performance was heard. The High Court observed that the balance of convenience was in favor of the respondent. The Court directed the subordinate court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit before the summer vacation closes. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The court directed the lower court to expedite the trial and dispose of the suit before the summer vacation closes.

Appu @ Viswambharan Vs Abhishek — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶7

FAO.No. 320 of 2012 ()

¶8

I.A.NO.1536/2012 IN OS NO.250/2012 OF IST ADDL. SUB COUTR, THRISSUR.

¶9

APPELLANT(S):

¶10

APPU @ VISWAMBHARAN

¶11

S/O.VALIAPARAMBIL VELAYUDHAN RESIDING AT CARGO LANE VALYALUKAL DESOM KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE THRISSUR TALUK

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶13

SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

ABHISHEK, S/O.CHOMATTIL PRAKASAN, KOORKANCHERRY VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK 680 007

¶16

R BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) R BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶17

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶20

F.A.O.No. 320 of 2012

¶21

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶22

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶25

This appeal is filed against the order passed by the First Addl. Sub Court, Thrissur in I.A. No.1536/2012 in O.S. No.250/2012. The application was dismissed by the court below stating that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent. The suit is one seeking for specific performance of the contract. An interim injunction was sought restraining the defendant from alienating the property, from creating documents concerning the same, or parting possession thereof, or creating any liability over the same or committing any waste.

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent undertakes that the property will not be alienated nor any charge will be created. The same is recorded.

¶27

The learned counsel for the respondent sought for an expeditious disposal of the suit. We direct the court below to expedite the trial of the

¶28

FAO No.320/2012

¶29

-2-

¶30

suit and to dispose of the same, at any rate, before the closing of the court

¶31

for summer vacation. The parties will co-operate with the trial of the suit.

¶32

The appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶33

(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶34

(B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶35

kav/

Appu @ Viswambharan v. Abhishek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appu @ Viswambharan v. Abhishek

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vareed Vs Elia

Angamaly Co-Operative Consumer'S Stores Ltd. NO.240 Vs John, S/O.Joseph

Sri.P.K.Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Sri.K.R.Sreekumar, Thrissur Vs Cochin Devaswom Board

Suo-Motu Vs Travancore Devaswom Board and Another

Jacob T.T. Vs the District Collector