Kerala High Court
M/S Septagon Builders And ... vs Ranjan Kuriakose on 23 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1942
FAO.No.79 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A NO.713 OF 2019 IN OS 55/2019 DATED
12-04-2019 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS :
1 M/S SEPTAGON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
INDIA PVT. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SOPHIA BUILDING IN
FRONT OF BISHP HOUSE, PATTOM, RESIDING AT
NAZARETH, XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR RENU ABRAHAM.
2 K P V ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE VASTU,
AGED 55 YEARS, CHAIRMAN, SEPTAGON BUILDERS
AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT. LIMITED,
2ND FLOOR SOPHA BUILDING IN FRONT OF
BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM RESIDING AT NAZARETH,
XIX/ 322, MUTTADA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 BLESSAN ABRAHAM, S/O. K P V ABRAHAM,
AGED 26 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEPTAGON
BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, SOPHIA BUILDING IN FRONT OF
BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM RESIDING AT NAZARETH,
XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 RENU ABRAHAM, DIRECTOR, AGED 52 YEARS,
SEPTAGON BUILDERSS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT
LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SOPHIA BUILDING IN FRONT OF
BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM, RESIDING AT NAZARETH,
XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR.
F.A.O Nos.79 & 94 of 2019 2
RESPONDENTS/COUNTERS PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS :
1 RANJAN KURIAKOSE, S/O. T.M. KURIAKOSE,
HOUSE NO. 3, PRASANTH HILL, NEAR CDS,
PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
2 HANNAH RANJAN, W/O. RANJAN KURIAKOSE,
HOUSE NO. 3, PRASANTH HILL NEAR, CDS,
PRASANTH NAGAR, ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 6985 011.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.GANESH KUMAR
R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.I.KAVITHA
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.ANILPRASAD.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23.02.2021, ALONG WITH FAO.94/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
F.A.O Nos.79 & 94 of 2019 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1942
FAO.No.94 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A NO.712 OF 2019 IN OS 55/2019 OF
PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS :
1 M/S.SEPTAGON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
INDIA PVT. LTD, 2ND FLOOR, SOPHINE BUILDING IN
FRONT OF BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM, RESIDING AT
NAZARETH, XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR RENU ABRAHAM.
2 K P V ABRAHAM, S/O. LATE VASTU, AGED 55 YEARS,
CHAIRMAN, SOPTAGON BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
INDIA PVT. LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SOPHIA BUILDING
IN FRONT OF BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM, RESIDING AT
NAZARETH XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 BLESSAN ABRAHAM, S/O. K P V ABRAHAM,
AGED 26 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SEPTAGON
BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA PVT.LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, SOPHINE BUILDING IN FRONT OF BISHOP
HOUSE, PATTOM, RESIDING AT NAZARETH,
XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
F.A.O Nos.79 & 94 of 2019 4
4 RENU ABRAHAM, DIRECTOR, AGED 52 YEARS,
SEPTAGON BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPERS INDIA
PVT.LTD., 2ND FLOOR, SOPHINE BUILDING IN FRONT
OF BISHOP HOUSE, PATTOM, RESIDING AT NAZARETH,
XIX/322, MUTTADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR.
RESPONDENTS/COUNTERS PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS :
1 RANJAN KURIAKOSE, S/O. T. M KURIAKOSE,
HOUSE NO. 3, PRASANTH HILL, NEAR CDS,
PRASANTH NAGAR ULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
2 HANNAH RANJAN,
W/O. RANJAN KURIAKOSE, HOUSE NO.3,
PRASANTH HILL, NEAR CDS, PRASANTH NAGAR,
ULLOOR MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.GANESH KUMAR
R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.K.I.KAVITHA
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.ANILPRASAD.
THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23.02.2021, ALONG WITH FAO.79/2019, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
F.A.O Nos.79 & 94 of 2019 5
A.HARIPRASAD & P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J J.
--------------------------------------
F.A.O Nos.79 & 94 of 2019
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT
A.Hariprasad, J
Heard the learned Senior counsel for appellants and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. A common order passed by the Principal Sub Judge,
Thiruvananthapuram on I.A Nos.712 and 713 of 2019 in O.S No.55 of
2019 is under challenge. The appellants are the plaintiffs in the above suit
and the respondents are the defendants. Suit is one for realization of money
based on Exts.A1 to A10. Along with the suit, applications for temporary
prohibitory injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C and also for an
attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of C.P.C were
filed. Both matters were considered together by the trial court and disposed
by a common order.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raised an
objection that in respect of the same property there cannot be an order of
temporary injunction as well as an attachment before judgment. To
buttress this contention, a decision reported in V.G.Quenim and another v.
Bandekar Brothers (P) Ltd. ((2002) 10 SCC 513) is pressed into service.
Learned Senior counsel submitted that the decision can be distinguished for
the reason that the initial order of attachment when lifted, the plaintiffs
moved an application for a temporary injunction. However, we are not
going into the merits of the matter because considering the issues raised
before us, we are of the view that there is no point in wasting time on these
appeals against orders. Instead, the suit for recovery of money can be
ordered to be considered on merits and disposed on an early date and that
will be beneficial for the parties. In the meantime, we direct that the
interim order passed by this Court on 11-06-2019 on I.A No.1 of 2019 in
F.A.O No.94 of 2019 shall continue until the disposal of the suit. Since the
interim order passed in F.A.O No.79 of 2019 on 28-05-2019 injuncting
alienation of the property is legally not required in this matter, we hereby
vacate the same.
In the result, we direct the court below to dispose of the suit
within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment on merits untrammelled by any of the observations made by this
Court. Parties shall co-operate to get the suit disposed on an early date.
Appeals are disposed of as above.
A. HARIPRASAD,
JUDGE.
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
amk
