IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 303 of 2009() ------------------------------- O.S.155/1992 OF MUNSIFF COURT, VATAKARA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER/8TH DEFENDANT ----------------------------------------------------- E. KUNHI KRISHNAN NAIR, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER E. CHANDRASEKHARAN, KRISHNA VILAS, VATAKARA AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. BY MR.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.K. MOHANAKANNAN. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 2, 4, 5 & 7 AND RECEIVER ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOMATH PUTHIYAVEETTIL BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. APPA NAIR, PENSIONER, PARVATHEEPURAM HOUSE, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, VATAKARA, VATAKARA AMSOM, DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 2. K. KUNHIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O. ACHUTHAN NAIR, PENSIONER, CHERUPONATH THAZHE KUNIYIL, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 3. EDODIYIL LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, D/O. RAMUNNI NAIR, SWASTHAM, RESIDING AT JAYAPRABHA, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 4. EDODIYIL JANAYANTHI GOPALAKRISHNAN, D/O. RAMUNNI NAIR, SWASTHAM, E.G. HOUSE, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, VATAKARA, VATAKARA AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, VATAKARA. 6. V.P. RAMACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE, RECEIVER, NEAR KUNIYIL PARADEVATHA TEMPLE, POST KEEZHPAYOOR (VIA), MEPAYOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R4 BY ADV. MR.B.KRISHNAN . R3 BY ADV. MR.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- C.R.P.No.303 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R The revision petition is directed against the order dated 13/03/2009 in O.S 155/1992 on the file of the Munsiff's Court Vadakara. The revision petitioner is the 8th defendant in the suit which was for declaration and injunction in relation to the management of a temple. Suit was decreed and against that decree an appeal was preferred, which is pending, in which stay of execution of the decree had been ordered. Stay granted continues to be in force. The receiver appointed by the court is at present in management of the temple. Petitioner had moved an application before the trial court seeking a direction to the receiver to get the ornaments of the idol from the 5th C.R.P.No.303 OF 2009 2 defendant/4th respondent in the revision who is admittedly in possession of the ornaments. Having regard to the fact that a stay granted by the appellate court, Sub Court, Vadakara is in force the learned Munsiff declined to grant the request. That order passed declining the request is impugned in the revision. 2. Heard the counsel on both sides. I find that the order of the court below that the relief claimed whether a direction has to be given to the receiver to obtain the ornaments from the 5th defendant/4th respondent has to be considered by the appellate court which has granted a stay order against further proceedings by the trial court cannot be termed improper. True, even if a receiver is appointed, the court which passed the decree can pass appropriate orders and a stay of the operation of the decree will not prevent the court from C.R.P.No.303 OF 2009 3 issuing such orders which are essential for advancing the ends of justice. However, it is better and more appropriate to get a direction in the matter from the appellate court in which the appeal is now pending. Granting the petitioner liberty to move a fresh application before the appellate court for the relief claimed in the petition the revision petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv