IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 636 of 1997(E)
1. T.K.RAVEENDRAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. H.SULAIMAN
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent :SC FOR COCHIN CORPN.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :29/01/2009
O R D E R
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J.
------------------------
C.R.P.No.636 OF 1997
------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009
ORDER
This civil revision petition is remaining defective for the past
12 years on the reason that notice is not served on the
respondent. But, I find that the respondent had lodged a caveat
in anticipation of the civil revision petition and copy of the CRP
was served on the learned counsel for the caveator. It is seen
that the caveator’s counsel sought for an adjournment in the
matter and thereafter he disappeared from the seen. Under the
above circumstances, according to me, there is justification for
treating that service of notice on the respondent is completed.
2. This court, on admitting the civil revision petition,
stayed the impugned order until further orders. This court also
passed an order of injunction restraining the respondent from
establishing any bunk by the sides of any road in the Cochin
Corporation until further orders. It is seen that the execution
petition was for initiation of action against one
Sri.T.K.Ravindran, then Secretary of the Cochin Corporation for
the alleged violation of the decree for injunction passed against
C.R.P.No.636/1997 2
the Corporation. Sri.T.K.Ravindran, is no longer the Secretary of
the Cochin Corporation and the execution petition can no longer
be maintainable against Sri.T.K.Ravindran. The decree holder
will have either to file a fresh execution petition arraying the
present Secretary of the Corporation or to seek substitution of
the present Secretary of the Corporation in the execution petition
for Mr.Ravindran. The order impugned in this civil revision
petition cannot any longer be implemented against
Sri.T.K.Ravindran since Ravindran’s impleadment in the execution
petition was not in his personal capacity. It is not clear as to
what were the circumstances under which order of injunction was
passed by this court restraining the respondent decree holder
from putting up any bunk on the sides of any road within the
limits of the Cochin Corporation. I am of the view that it will
suffice, if the respondent is restrained from establishing any
bunk shop within the limits of the Cochin Corporation without
obtaining licence in that regard from the Corporation.
The result is that the civil revision petition is disposed of
without examining the merits on the reason that the execution
petition is no longer maintainable against Sri..T.K.Ravindran.
C.R.P.No.636/1997 3
The interim order staying the operation of the impugned order
will continue. The interim order of injunction restraining the
respondent from putting up new bunks by the sides of the roads
in the Cochin Corporation is modified and it is ordered that the
injunction will not relate to establishment of bunks after
obtaining licence or permission from the Cochin Corporation.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE
dpk
C.R.P.No.636/1997 4
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J.
————————
C.R.P.No.636 OF 1997
————————
JUDGMENT
29TH JANUARY 2009