IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7211 of 2008(H) ------------------------- CMP.705 & 376/2008 of J.M.F.C.,MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ SREI INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE LIMITED, VISWAKARMA, 86C, TOPSIA ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKOTA-700 046, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER H.SUBRAMANIAN, MANAGER, CHENNAI BRANCH, GOPALAPURAM, CHENNAI-86. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. LATHEEF, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLAKUTTY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, PUNCHAPADAM, VAZHAYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKKAD POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.7211 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T As per Ext.P1 order, a vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he has, in compliance with the said order, done the needful and got back the vehicle in his possession. Ext.P1(a) direction was issued by the learned Magistrate and accordingly the vehicle has been given over to the possession of the petitioner. 2. The registered owner of the vehicle had approached this Court and another Bench of this Court by Ext.P4 order had directed that the handing over of the vehicle pursuant to Ext.P1 order shall be kept in abeyance till the expiry of one week of issue of the certified copies. Without knowledge of Ext.P4, the vehicle was got released by the petitioner. On being moved by the registered owner, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to surrender the vehicle before the police. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by that order. In the light of Ext.P4 order passed by this Court, the petitioner cannot be heard to advance any grievance against the innocuous direction issued by the learned Magistrate to ensure compliance with Ext.P4 order. W.P(C).No.7211 of 2008 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was a direction in Ext.P2 that the petitioner must produce the vehicle before the S.H.O, Vazhakkad, he has not done the same. The counsel prays that the petitioner may be given some further time to produce the vehicle before the S.H.O, Vazhakkad as directed in Ext.P4 order. I am satisfied that the latter part of the request can be accepted. 4. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed in part. The petitioner is given time till 03.03.08 to produce the vehicle before the S.H.O, Vazhakkad. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-