TRADERS TOWER CONSTRUCTIONS PROPERTY Vs. JOSE JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and learned senior counsel for the contestants, the plaintiffs. FAO.273/12 is by defendants 1 to 4 and FAO.274/12 is by the 5th defendant in a suit of specific performance of an agreement to grant lease of room Nos.1 to 7 in a multi- storied structure, which is in the ground floor of that building.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS claim that they had a contract for grant of lease of that portion. The trial court had granted an ad interim order of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from inducting strangers and transferring that portion of the building. Later, plaintiffs sought an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any further work in that portion of the building, including decorative works. The court below heard the parties in relation to both those interlocutory applications and passed the impugned order on 12.6.2012, making absolute its earlier ad-interim order restraining inducting strangers and transferring that portion of the building. It also issued an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any further work, including decoration works in that portion of the building to which the agreement to lease relates.

(3.) WE see that very many issues on facts and law over which there are considerable disputes have been marshelled in the interlocutory order. Obviously, that only reflects the tenacity with which the matter would have been agitated before the court below. We would have thought that by the time the court below had passed the impugned interlocutory order, it could have completed the trial. The discretion having been appropriately exercised by the court below in issuing the impugned order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, we are of the view that it is inappropriate that we disturb the effect of the impugned order passed on 12.6.2012 and which is in force now, for the last nearly three months. However, we are clear in our mind that having regard to the commercial interest of the defendants and the commercial requirement of the plaintiffs, the trial of the suit should not linger longer. It should also be ensured that the trial is held and the matter decided by the court below untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order. We would also suggest that the parties may consider amicable resolution, including in terms of ADR provisions in section 89 CPC; in particular, through mediation which is now well in place in all districts of Kerala.