IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 CRP.No. 709 of 2000(C) --------------------------------- CMA.111/1999 OF ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR OS.2311/1999 OF PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,THRISSUR ....................................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS- CR .PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAYED MEERAN, POTTIMADA, VANIYANPARA, PEECHI, THRISSUR. 2. JABBAR, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MATHARKUTTY @ ABDUL KHADER, POTTIMADA VANIYAMPARA, PEECHI, THRISSUR. 2. SAINABHA, -DO- -DO- BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) ADDL. R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO. 1472/2000 IN C.R.P NO. 709/2000. DISMISSED 09/01/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. True copy tga M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 709 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th day of January, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the District Judge, Thrissur in CMA 111/99. the said CMA was preferred against I.A.5357/99 in O.S.2311/99. The case of the plaintiff is that the property belongs to the predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiff and had obtained a certificate of purchase and as they are in possession they are entitled to the property. On the contra the defendant would contend that they had also obtained a certificate of purchase which is prior to the issuance of the certificate of purchase relied upon by the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction prayed for. 2. The Court below considered the matter and granted an order of injunction. It was relying upon the same documents which is capable of being explained away a decision is arrived at. So, the appellate Court has also held that prima facie there is a case which is to be considered. Therefore I do not want to interfere with the concurrent CRP NO. 709 of 2000 -:2:- findings rendered by the Courts below and therefore this CRP is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment. It shall do so, untrammeled by the observations contained in the trial court's or appellate court's order, after permitting both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. I am told that an impleading petition is filed by a stranger, so far as the suit is concerned and that also may be considered by the Courts below and dispose of and thereafter the suit be disposed of within that period. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- CRP NO. 709 of 2000 -:3:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 709 OF 2000 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 9th January, 2008.