IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 RP.No. 91 of 2011(O) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.32007/2009 Dated 07/10/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT IN WPC -------------------------------------------------------------------- PADINCHARE VARIATH NARAYANA VARIAYAR S/O.KUNHUNNI VARIYAR, VANMUKHAM AMSOM CHINGAPURAM DESOM, CHINGAPURAM P.O. BY ADV. SMT.REENA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. KALLERI K. BALAN, S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, PENSIONER, PURIKKAS AMSOM, CHINGAPURAM P.O., KOZHIPURAM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE - 673529. 2. SECRETARY, THIKKODI GRAMA PANCHYATH CHINGAPURAM P.O. KOYILANDI, KOZHIKODE-673529. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SD RP NO. 91/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY POLLUTION CONTROL BORD TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 30.12.2005 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE SD HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- R.P. No. 91 of 2011 in W.P.(c) No.32007/2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 14h day of December 2011. O R D E R The first respondent in writ petition No. 32007/2009 is the review petitioner. The Review petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 7.10.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 32007/2009. The writ petitioner is the first defendant in O.S.No.79/2004 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Payyoli. Ext.P1 decree was passed permitting the first defendant to operate his flour mill notwithstanding the order of injunction in the event of the first defendant complying the measures suggested in Ext.C2 report . 2. The plaintiff in the suit filed execution petition alleging non-compliance of conditions in Ext.P1 decree. The execution court by order dated 14.10.09 held that the judgment debtor has been running the mill in violation of the R.P.No.91/2011 in W.P.(C) No.32007/2009 2 decree of injunction. After finding that there is violation of the decree, the learned Munsiff held that the judgment debtor had disobeyed the decree willfully and therefore the decree can be enforced by detaining the writ petitioner in civil prison for one month and by attachment of the decree schedule property. The said order was challenged by the judgment debtor in Writ Petition No. 32007/2009. This Court considered the contentions raised by the parties and concluded that there is no justification for passing the impugned order by the execution court. This Court held that the judgment debtor had complied with the conditions set out in the decree and therefore, there is no violation of the decree for permanent injunction, therefore, there is no justification for passing an order of detention of the writ petitioner in civil prison and attachment of his properties. This Court set aside the order passed by the Munsiff Court and allowed the writ petition. This Court passed the judgment after hearing the writ petitioner and the contesting respondents. Review R.P.No.91/2011 in W.P.(C) No.32007/2009 3 petitioner is the first respondent in the writ petition. The grounds raised in the review petition are grounds touching the merits of the case. The contentions raised by all the parties were considered and this Court passed the judgment granting the relief to the writ petitioner who is the judgment debtor in the execution petition. No sustainable grounds are made out by the review petitioner who is the decree holder/first respondent in the writ petition, to review the judgment. The review petition is devoid of any merit and hence dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al