IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRP.No. 1339 of 2003 ---------------------- [AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/12/2002 IN IA.603/2002 IN OS.44/2002 OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD] .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF: ---------------------------------------------------------------- MADHAVAN NAIR VIJAYAKUMAR, ARUN NIVAS, NAKARA, POOVACHAL, VEERANAKAVU, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT/CR. PETITIONER-DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ MADHAVAN NAIR JAYAKUMAR, AJITHA BHAVAN, POOVACHAL, VEERANAKAVU VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. No.1339 of 2003 ==================================== Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 O R D E R The Civil Revision is in challenge of order dated 16.12.2002 on I.A. No.603 of 2002 in O.S. No.44 of 2002 of the court of learned Munsiff, Nedumangad. Petitioner-plaintiff obtained an order of injunction against respondent trespassing into the suit property, destroying the boundaries or interfering with possession of petitioner. Later, petitioner filed I.A. No.603 of 2002 for enforcement of the order of injunction with police assistance. That application was dismissed by the learned Munsiff by the impugned order. 2. I have heard learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner. 3. The impugned order was passed on 16.12.2002 and for the last nine years petitioner was conducting himself so far as it related to the enforcement of injunction order of injunction without any police assistance. Learned Senior Advocate took objection to the observation made in the impugned that there was no violation of the interim order of injunction. But that C.R.P. No.1339 of 2003 -: 2 :- observation will stand confined to the disposal of I.A. No.603 of 2002. 4. At this distant point of time I am not inclined to think that this Court should interfere with the order under challenge. In the above view of the matter the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv