IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 189 of 2010() -------------------------------- EA. NO.66/2010 IN EP. 3/2010 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KATTAPPANA. .......... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 3RD PARTY ----------------------------- SREEDEVI, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O. MOHANAN, CHERAMPARIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA ,KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONER DECREE HOLDER/ JUDGMENT DEBTORS. ------------------------- 1. P.P.KURIAN, THONAKKARA HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THANKAPPAN, NJANILATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3 SAJI, NJANILATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. ANIL, S/O. THANKAPPAN, NJANILATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. RADHA, W/O. THANKAPPAN, NJANILATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- C.R.P No.189 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2010 O R D E R Aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2010 passed by the Munsiff Court, Kattappana in E.A No.66/200 in E.P. No.3/2010, the petitioner before the court below has come in revision. 2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 47, r/w Section 51 of C.P.C. It appears that the decree holder is the 1st respondent in the court below filed a suit as O.S No.149/2003 for prohibitory injunction and the suit was granted. Since the decree has not been honoured it appears that the execution proceedings were initiated. The direction in the decree was to close the Borma conducted in plaint B schedule property. 3. The petitioner who was not a party to the suit and against whom there was no decree at all by the court below, filed a petition under Section 47 read with Section 51 of C.P.C for permission to conduct a Borma on the basis that she has got valid license. The court below on C.R.P No.189 of 2010 2 consideration of the materials found that there was no valid license and therefore permission could not be granted. 4. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the court below. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has got valid license. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the lower court and in case she produces a valid license before the court below showing that she is entitled to conduct Borma then appropriate orders shall be passed in this regard, as early as possible by the court below. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma C.R.P No.189 of 2010 3 C.R.P No.189 of 2010 4