IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 90 of 2006() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EA NO. 382/2005 IN EP.382/2003 of SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTORS. ----------------------------------- 1. M/S.BRIDGE TUNNEL CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ELOOR HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY 682 311. 2. SASI ELOOR, S/O.E.M.VARKEY, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM (SR.) SRI.ABEESH JOSE RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS 4 TO 15 ---------------------------- 1. TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY IN CHARGE NO. 8000, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI 600 002. 2. ALEYAMMA VARKEY(DIED), ELOOR HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O. 3. PAVANA JACOB, D/O.LATE P.M.VARKEY. DO. DO. 4. SICILY GEORGE, D/O.LATE E.M.VARKEY, DO. DO. 5. BABY PAUL, S/O.V.C.PAULOSE, VALLIAMMAL HOUSE, CHERU OORAMANA, MUVATTUPPUZHA. 6. SAJU E.ELOOR, S/O.E.M.MANI, ELOOR HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY. 7. V.J.KURIAKOSE, S/O.YOYAKI, VELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY. 8. V.K.YOYKAI, S/O.V.J.KURIAKOSE, DO. DO. CRP 90/2006 2 9. NIJA VIJAYAN, D/O.GOVINDAN, THIRUVILAKKIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY. 10. SHIBU.E.ELOOR, S/O.E.M.MANI, ELOOR HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY,. 11. SUNNY.E.ELOOR, S/O.E.M.MANI, ELOOR HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY. 12. P.V.PAULOSE, S/O.PAILY PADAVATTIL, KOLENCHERRY PO. 13. P.U.KOROTH, S/O.UTHUPPU, PUNILATHU HOUSE,, KEEZHILLAM PO, KERALA. 14. T.D.DAYANANDAN, S/O.RAMESH, THIRIVILAKKIL, KOLENCHERRY PO. 15. T.R.MUKUNDAN, S/O,.RAMAN, THIRUVILAKKIL, KOLENCHERRY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.90 of 2006 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 ORDER The revision is referred against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Muvattupuzha whereby the court below has refused to lift the attachment. There is a decree passed against the judgment debtors and a special leave appeal is pending and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted a stay of further proceedings. So under these circumstances, the court held that it cannot lift the attachment. I do not find any mistake. Therefore, the C.R.P. is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl