IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 636 of 1997(E) ---------------------- (E.A.NO.20/1997 IN E.P.NO.667/96 IN O.S.NO.1560/06 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM) REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/IST JUDGMENT DEBTOR --------------------- T.K.RAVEENDRAN, COMMISSIONER OF KOCHI CORPORATION (SECRETARY), KOCHI CORPORATION BUILDING ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER --------------- H.SULAIMAN, MANAYATH HOUSE RESIDING AT SAJITHA MANZIL, POST OFFICE ROAD THEVARA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.1373/97 IN C.R.P.NO.636/97 DISMISSED 29-01-2009 Sd/-, PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.636 OF 1997 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 ORDER This civil revision petition is remaining defective for the past 12 years on the reason that notice is not served on the respondent. But, I find that the respondent had lodged a caveat in anticipation of the civil revision petition and copy of the CRP was served on the learned counsel for the caveator. It is seen that the caveator's counsel sought for an adjournment in the matter and thereafter he disappeared from the seen. Under the above circumstances, according to me, there is justification for treating that service of notice on the respondent is completed. 2. This court, on admitting the civil revision petition, stayed the impugned order until further orders. This court also passed an order of injunction restraining the respondent from establishing any bunk by the sides of any road in the Cochin Corporation until further orders. It is seen that the execution petition was for initiation of action against one Sri.T.K.Ravindran, then Secretary of the Cochin Corporation for the alleged violation of the decree for injunction passed against C.R.P.No.636/1997 2 the Corporation. Sri.T.K.Ravindran, is no longer the Secretary of the Cochin Corporation and the execution petition can no longer be maintainable against Sri.T.K.Ravindran. The decree holder will have either to file a fresh execution petition arraying the present Secretary of the Corporation or to seek substitution of the present Secretary of the Corporation in the execution petition for Mr.Ravindran. The order impugned in this civil revision petition cannot any longer be implemented against Sri.T.K.Ravindran since Ravindran's impleadment in the execution petition was not in his personal capacity. It is not clear as to what were the circumstances under which order of injunction was passed by this court restraining the respondent decree holder from putting up any bunk on the sides of any road within the limits of the Cochin Corporation. I am of the view that it will suffice, if the respondent is restrained from establishing any bunk shop within the limits of the Cochin Corporation without obtaining licence in that regard from the Corporation. The result is that the civil revision petition is disposed of without examining the merits on the reason that the execution petition is no longer maintainable against Sri..T.K.Ravindran. C.R.P.No.636/1997 3 The interim order staying the operation of the impugned order will continue. The interim order of injunction restraining the respondent from putting up new bunks by the sides of the roads in the Cochin Corporation is modified and it is ordered that the injunction will not relate to establishment of bunks after obtaining licence or permission from the Cochin Corporation. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk C.R.P.No.636/1997 4 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ C.R.P.No.636 OF 1997 ------------------------ JUDGMENT 29TH JANUARY 2009