IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1148 of 2011() ------------------------------ ( MC.163/2010 of THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,FORT KOCHI ) .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------------- DELEELA XAVIER, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.XAVIER, RESIDING AT KATTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANASSERY, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI-682 507. BY ADVS. SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (VATTATHARA), SRI.T.JEEJAN. RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- 1. DORIS SABU, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SABU, ADDRESS AT IKANATTU HOUSE, MANASSERY, MUNDAMVELI P.O., KOCHI-682 507. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.GEORGE, SMT.SMITHA GEORGE. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRRP.NO.1148/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER UNDER SECTION 133 IN M.C.NO.163/10/D DTD. 26/06/2010. ANNEX.II: COPY OF THE ABSOLUTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 138 IN M.C.NO.163/10/D DTD. 08/11/2010. ANNEX.III: COPY OF THE PEREMPTORY ORDER UNDER SECTION 141 IN M.C.NO.163/10/D DTD. 06/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE: R1(A): PHOTOGRAPHS. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1148 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July 2011 ORDER The revision is directed against an order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi in a proceeding under Section 133(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the aforesaid proceeding, the Magistrate has directed the revision petitioner to cut and remove a coconut tree standing in his property, which is alleged to be causing threat to the residential building of the respondent and also the occupants of that building. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that one of the trees covered by the proceeding had already been cut and removed, the other coconut tree, which is also stated to be causing threat to the respondent, and directed to be cut and removed under the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, will be cut down within a period of two months. Time alone is requested for to give effect to the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Though the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is not in tune with the provisions covered by Chapter X B of the Code, having regard to the submissions made as above, by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, which will give a quietus to the controversy Crl.R.P No.1148 OF 2011 2 between the petitioner and the respondent who are stated to be close neighbours, I find, extension of time for cutting down the tree, covered by the order, as prayed for by the petitioner, has to be granted. Petitioner is granted extension of two months time from today to cut down the tree covered by the impugned order. Revision is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge