Kolakkadan Abdul Azeez vs Parathodi Sakeer Ali

0
111
Kerala High Court
Kolakkadan Abdul Azeez vs Parathodi Sakeer Ali
       

  

  

 
 
  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

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *