IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 47 of 2009 ------------------------------- OS.294/2006 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: 1. KANCHANA, W/O.VISWANADHAN, PUTHIYANIKARTH (KOLLARAYIL), THIRUMALABHAGOM.P.O. 2. VISWAKUMAR, S/O KANCHANA, PUTHIYANIKARTH (KOLLARAYIL), THIRUMALABHAGOM.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY SRI.L.JAYAWANTH RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: PRABHAKARAN, S/O NARAYANAN, PADINJARE MUNDUPARAMBIL, THURAVOOR PADINJATTUMKARA THEKKU VILLAGE, THEKKUM MURIYIL, CHERTHALA. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.R.P.No.47 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.294/06 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala, instituted by the respondent as plaintiff. It is submitted that the prayers in the plaint are for eviction of the petitioners/defendants from the building in the scheduled property and for injunction and that petitioners, who are the defendants in the suit, raised a contention therein that they are having kudikidappu right in the scheduled property and consequently, Issue No.1 was raised in relation to kudikidappu right so claimed. The court below entered into a finding on Issue No.1 and this revision petition arises out of the said order passed entering into a finding on Issue No.1. Under Section 115 of the CPC, a revision is not maintainable against such an order. In the result, I dismiss this revision petition as not maintainable, but, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in other proceedings, if so advised. 29th January, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv