IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2009 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 328 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 3975/2008 IN AS.135/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT, THALASSERY OS.533/2006 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT.,KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.K.MOIDU HAJI, S/O.MAMMAD HAJI AGED 71 YEARS, BUSINESS, POST KOLACHERI KOLACHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. V.P.MUHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.MOIDU HAJI AGED 37 YEARS, BUSINESS, POST KOLACHERI KOLACHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. V.P.SADIQUE,S/O.MOIDU HAJI AGED 32 YEARS, BUSINESS, POST KOLACHERI KOLACHERRY AMSOM, PATTAYAM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------ KEELATH MOOLAYIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL HASSAN S/O.KHADER, AGED 59 YEARS, BUSINEES, PANNIYANKANDI, POST KOLACHERI,KOLACHERRY AMSOM NANIYUR DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.328 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 27th October, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.533 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Kannur. The above suit was for a declaration of mandatory injunction and permanent prohibitory injunction, and the respondent was the plaintiff. Suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Against the decree and judgment, petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal, which is now pending as A.S.No.135 of 2008 before the Sub Court, Thalassery. In the appeal, petitioners have moved an application for staying the execution of the decree impugned, but, the appellate court dismissed that application. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on both sides. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find, to advance the ends of justice, an expeditious disposal of the appeal is necessary to give a quietus to the whole controversy. The court below is directed to hear and dispose the appeal as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this CRP No.328/09 - 2 - order. Till then the execution of the decree impugned in the appeal shall be kept in abeyance. Subject to the above direction, the revision is disposed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE