SHALINI K. Vs. RAMANAND R.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the Civil Court jurisdiction or power to pass a temporary order of injunction restraining the manager of an aided school from transferring the management of the school involving change of ownership from his name to the name of another person. This is the sole question that emerges for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant herein is the first defendant in O.S. No. 95/2015 on the files of the Principal Sub Court, Thalassery filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein. The aforesaid suit was one for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immovable property with a High School situated therein, in terms of the agreement for sale. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed I.A. No. 2820 of 2015 in the said suit, seeking an interim order of injunction, restraining the appellant from destroying the evidence of the improvements made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the school building or from removing any movables from the petition schedule properties or transferring the management of the school from the name of the appellant to respondent Nos. 3 to 7 or any others or making any charges/encumbrances or any documents in favour of any others about the petition schedule properties, till the disposal of the suit. The appellant herein failed to file an objection to the said petition, within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Court below passed an order of injunction, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached this Court by filing F.A.O. No. 91/2016 and this Court, as per judgment dated 22/03/2016, modified the order passed by the Court below and further directed the appellant to approach the Court below under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for discharging or varying or setting aside the order of injunction passed by the Court below. In compliance with the said direction, the appellant filed a counter in I.A. No. 2820/2015 and prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Court below. The first respondent filed a counter opposing the said application contending that this Court has already modified the earlier order passed by the Court below and there is no scope for further variation in the order passed earlier by the Court below. However, after considering the rival pleadings, the Court below dismissed the said application on a finding that this Court has already modified the earlier order passed by the Court below and there is no further scope for any variation. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings are under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.