IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRP.No. 674 of 2009() 1. KOLAKKADAN ABDUL AZEEZ, ... Petitioner Vs 1. PARATHODI SAKEER ALI, ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN Dated :/ / O R D E R S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.674 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER
Revision is directed against the judgment dated
30/11/2009 in C.M.A No.17 of 2009 passed by the learned
District Judge, Manjeri. The above appeal was filed against
an order passed by the learned Munsiff in an interlocutory
application for injunction directing the parties to maintain
status quo. The dispute related to construction of a building
in a property over which rival claims were set up by the
parties. Suit was filed before the vacation judge and after
hearing both sides, an order was passed that further
construction will be at the risk of the present revision
petitioner/defendant in the suit. Pursuant thereto,
construction of the building continued and according to the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, it has
been completed and ready for occupation. In the appeal
preferred by him against the order passed by the learned
C.R.P.No.674 OF 2009 Page numbers
Munsiff directing the maintaining of status quo, an
undertaking is stated to have been given by him that the
construction put up would be subject to the decision of the
suit after trial. The learned District Judge taking note of the
undertaking given and also the submissions made, passed
the impugned judgment whereby petitioner/defendant has
been permitted to carry out the work and complete the
construction of the building. But such permission was
granted subject to the condition, the petitioner can use the
building so completed for his own personal use or
occupation, but cannot alienate the building or part of the
same or induct any strangers on license or on lease or by
any other arrangement. Revision is directed against that
part of the order restraining the petitioner/defendant from
inducting strangers to the completed building on lease or
license arrangement.
2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On
the submissions made and taking note of the facts and
C.R.P.No.674 OF 2009 Page numbers
circumstances presented, I find if at all the petitioner has got
any grievance against any part of the order passed by the
learned District Judge which is seen based on the
undertaking given by him, he has to approach that court and
seek appropriate modifications as provided by law.
Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek modification, if
he is entitled to, as provided by law, the revision is closed.
I make it clear that, I am not expressing any opinion on the
modification, if any, applied for by the petitioner.
Sd/-
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
vdv