High Court Kerala High Court

Mohammed Kasian Abdul Jalal vs Mohammed Kasian Mohammed Rasheed on 3 March, 2008

Kerala High Court
Mohammed Kasian Abdul Jalal vs Mohammed Kasian Mohammed Rasheed on 3 March, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 457 of 2002()


1. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL JALAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOHAMMED KASIAN MOHAMMED RASHEED,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL VAHEED,

3. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL BASHEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :03/03/2008

 O R D E R
                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                         R.P.No.457 of 2002
                  -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008



                                 ORDER

This review petition is preferred with a prayer to review the

judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.3391/01 dated 1st April, 2002.

The court below ordered demolition of construction done in the

property. This Court considered the matter elaborately and

allowed the revision on the following grounds. The court

examined the decree and found that the suit has been decreed by

granting a decree of injunction alone. The execution court when

an application under Order XXI Rule 32 was filed declined to

allow the prayer of recovery of possession but it granted an

order of demolition of construction. This Court opined that such

a course cannot be adopted in an injunction decree and therefore

held that the court cannot do something which had happened

after the decree when there is no such relief granted and

therefore, set aside the order of the executing court and gave

liberty to the decree holder to file a fresh E.P. in accordance

with law.

Rew.P No.457/2002 2

I do not find any error apparent on the face of the records

to interfere or any other reason to review the judgment and

therefore, the Review petition lacks merit and it is accordingly

dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
csl