IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 29TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 1166 of 2002() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2001 IN IA. 235 /1995 IN AS.15/1995 of SUB COURT, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/JUDGMENT DEBTORS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THURAVOOR SOUTH VILLAGE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDERS ---------------------------------------- 1. A.P.PRASANTHAN, CHANDRALAYATHIL, THURAVOOR THEKKU. 2. JACOB MATHEW, BABY VILLA, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.K.SASI KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R-1 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R-1 SRI.MANU V. FOR R-1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.1166 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 20th November, 2009 ORDER The revision is filed by the State/1st defendant in O.S.No.475 of 1992 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Cherthala, which was a suit for injunction filed by the first respondent against the revenue recovery proceedings issued against him towards arrears of tax due on a motor vehicle. Suit was decreed in favour of the first respondent restraining the State and the public officials impleaded as defendants 2 and 3, from proceeding under the Revenue Recovery Act against the first respondent/plaintiff under the notice already issued. State preferred an appeal with a petition to condone the delay. Petition to condone the delay was dismissed under the impugned order. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. First respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Service on 2nd respondent effected by publication. I heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the first respondent. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no interference with the order passed by the court below declining the request made by CRP No.1166/02 - 2 - the petitioner for condoning the delay in preferring the appeal is called for. Learned Government Pleader has handed over to me a copy of the judgment rendered by the trial court which indicate injunction was granted only restraining the State and its public officials from proceeding against the first respondent/plaintiff in respect of the notice mentioned, as issued under the Revenue Recovery Act. It is open to the State to take recourse to whatever remedies available under law as the decree forbids them from proceeding only in respect of the notice already issued, which alone was sought to be injuncted by the 1st respondent/plaintiff in the suit. Subject to the observations made above, the revision is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE