IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009/30TH AGRAHAYANA1931 CRP.No. 674 of 2009() --------------------- REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- KOLAKKADAN ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.HASSAN HAJI, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, ANAKAYAM.P.O, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ PARATHODI SAKEER ALI, S/O.ABDULLA HAJI, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, P.O.ANAKAYAM, ERANAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.674 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- ORDER Revision is directed against the judgment dated 30/11/2009 in C.M.A No.17 of 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Manjeri. The above appeal was filed against an order passed by the learned Munsiff in an interlocutory application for injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo. The dispute related to construction of a building in a property over which rival claims were set up by the parties. Suit was filed before the vacation judge and after hearing both sides, an order was passed that further construction will be at the risk of the present revision petitioner/defendant in the suit. Pursuant thereto, construction of the building continued and according to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, it has been completed and ready for occupation. In the appeal preferred by him against the order passed by the learned C.R.P.No.674 OF 2009 Page numbers Munsiff directing the maintaining of status quo, an undertaking is stated to have been given by him that the construction put up would be subject to the decision of the suit after trial. The learned District Judge taking note of the undertaking given and also the submissions made, passed the impugned judgment whereby petitioner/defendant has been permitted to carry out the work and complete the construction of the building. But such permission was granted subject to the condition, the petitioner can use the building so completed for his own personal use or occupation, but cannot alienate the building or part of the same or induct any strangers on license or on lease or by any other arrangement. Revision is directed against that part of the order restraining the petitioner/defendant from inducting strangers to the completed building on lease or license arrangement. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the submissions made and taking note of the facts and C.R.P.No.674 OF 2009 Page numbers circumstances presented, I find if at all the petitioner has got any grievance against any part of the order passed by the learned District Judge which is seen based on the undertaking given by him, he has to approach that court and seek appropriate modifications as provided by law. Reserving the right of the petitioner to seek modification, if he is entitled to, as provided by law, the revision is closed. I make it clear that, I am not expressing any opinion on the modification, if any, applied for by the petitioner. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv