IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRP.No. 1390 of 2003() ----------------------------- I.A.NO.4376/2000 IN O.S. NO.1903/2000 OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. CMA NO.15/2001 DATED 22/11/2002 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------------------------- JACOB, S/O.CHEENAPPILLY CHAKKUNNY, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH S/O. KEETTIKKA VARGHESE, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. ANNU S/O. KEETTIKKA JOSEPH, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. MARY W/O. LATE KEETTIKKA VARGHESE, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 4. LISSY D/O LATE KEETTIKKA VARGHESE, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 5. JOSE S/O. KEETTIKKA JOSEPH, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 6. SHIRLY D/O. KEETTIKKA JOSEPH, KALLOOR VILLAGE, KONIKKARA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING : K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------- C.R.P No. 1390 of 2003 ---------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 ORDER In this C.R.P filed as early as in 2003, delay in filing the C.R.P has been condoned on 24/11/2004 vide C.M. Application No. 154 of 2003 after service to the respondents. Thereafter, no interest is shown by the petitioner to have this C.R.P got admitted despite lapse of four years and no order was desired to be had on injunction application I.A. no. 551 of 2003. It is seen that petitioner is also the appellant in S.A. No.505 of 2001 and that was disposed of by another single bench of this court on 10/04/2008 by the following judgments; “Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that in the objection filed by the petitioner it was stated that petitioner has sold the property and left the place and petitioner did not contact the counsel and counsel could not contact him and he has no instructions. Hence, C.M.P. Nos.926 of 2002 and 927 of 2002 and 928 of 2002 are dismissed for default. Consequently appeal is also dismissed.” This C.R.P is against the concurrent order passed by the courts below. C.R.P No. 1390/2003 2 On merits also I do not see that the petitioner has got any prima facie case to be argued in this C.R.P.. Hence, the request for time made by the counsel for petitioner is refused and I dismiss this C.R.P. K.P. BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE scm