IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 2186 of 2001() ---------------------- CMA.47/2000 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM I.A.2260/2000 IN OS.626/2000 of ADDL.M.C.,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------ B.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/o. N.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI RESIDING AT ERAVIMANGALAM, MUTTAMBALAM VILLAGE, MANGANAM KARA, DO. P.O. BY B.UNNIKRISHNAN(PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------- THE RUBBER BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RBHO, KOTTAYAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN,J ============================= C.R.P.No.2186 of 2001 & C.M.P.No.4696 of 2001 ================================ Dated this the 31st day of March, 2008 ORDER Though notice was ordered in the petition for condonation of delay on 22.11.2001, process is not paid yet. 2. The civil revision petition is filed challenging the dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner by which the Appellate Court confirmed the order passed by the Trial court in I.A.No.2260/2000. I.A.No.2260/2000 is an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent from opening and inaugurating a Crumb Rubber Factory. The Trial court held that the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant. 3. Even if the defects were cured, in the nature of the relief sought for, there is no chance for the petitioner to succeed in the revision. The application for condonation of delay is therefore dismissed for default. Consequently, the revision is also dismissed. Since the petitioner is appearing in person and since he has not appeared today, the Registry will communicate a copy of this order to the petitioner. K.T.SANKARAN,JUDGE dvs