IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 457 of 2002() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.3391/2001 Dated 01/04/2002 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/(FIRST RESPONDENT) ------------------------------- MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL JALAL PUTHEKADA VEEDU, VENGODU, THACHAPPALLI MURI, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/(REVN.PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENTS). ------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED KASIAN MOHAMMED RASHEED, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, VENGODU, THACHAPPALLY MURI, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE. 2. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL VAHEED, PUTHENKADA VEEDU, VENGODU, THACHAPPALLY MURI, KEEZHTHONNAKKAL VILLAGE. 3. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL BASHEER, WORKING AS CASHIER RURAL, S.P. OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.457 of 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 ORDER This review petition is preferred with a prayer to review the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.3391/01 dated 1st April, 2002. The court below ordered demolition of construction done in the property. This Court considered the matter elaborately and allowed the revision on the following grounds. The court examined the decree and found that the suit has been decreed by granting a decree of injunction alone. The execution court when an application under Order XXI Rule 32 was filed declined to allow the prayer of recovery of possession but it granted an order of demolition of construction. This Court opined that such a course cannot be adopted in an injunction decree and therefore held that the court cannot do something which had happened after the decree when there is no such relief granted and therefore, set aside the order of the executing court and gave liberty to the decree holder to file a fresh E.P. in accordance with law. Rew.P No.457/2002 2 I do not find any error apparent on the face of the records to interfere or any other reason to review the judgment and therefore, the Review petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl