IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 CRP.No. 178 of 2007() -------------------------- CMA.62/2006 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM OS.682/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS:PETITIONERS ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIVANANDAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.SIVADASAN, SANU NIVAS, HOUSE NO.87, SNG NAGAR, MULLUVIALA, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SANU (MINOR AGED 17) S/O.SIVANANDAN OF DO. DO. 3. ANU (MINOR AGED 15) S/O.SIVANANDAN OF DO. DO. REVISION PETITIONERS 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1ST REV.PETITIONER. BY ADVS. SRI.P.PUSHPARAJAN SRI.MANJU ANTONEY SRI.RAJA. P.R.S. RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ARUNDHATHI, AGED 56 YEARS, D/O.PANKAJAKSHI, AJAYA BHAVAN, MOOTHALA P.O., MADAVOOR PALLICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NEELAKANTAN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, VENDER MUKKU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM (DIED). 3. VIJAYAMMA, HOUSE NO.27, PALLAVI, NAGAR, PUTHALATHAZHAM VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. svs .........2/-... ...2... 4. SUGATHAN, H/O. VIJAYAMMA, DO. 5. UMA, D/O.VIJAYAMMA DO. 6. REGHUNATHAN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, VENDER MUKKU, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 7. SARASWATHY, HARISREE NAGAR, MULLUVILA, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHA KRISHNAN R3 TO 5 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.178 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order in C.M.A.No.62/2006. The said appeal was preferred against the order in I.A.No.1167/2006 in O.S.No.682/2002. It was an application for appointment of receiver. 2. The trial court found that there are no grounds to appoint a receiver and dismissed the application. The learned appellate judge also had considered the matter exhaustively and held that no interference is called for. The appellate court rightly observed that appointment of receiver is a harsh remedy. Both the courts have approached the matter in that perspective and the appellate court also held that as the suit is ripe for trial, it can be directed to be disposed of and thus, dismissed the appeal. 3. I do not find any ground to deviate from the said observation made by the trial court, but the only direction is that the trial court has to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations contained in its own order or the order of : 2 : C.R.P.NO.178 OF 2007 the appellate court. 4. So, I direct the trial court to dispose of the matter at the earliest, that too within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Registry shall send a copy of this order for compliance. Records be transmitted to the trial court expeditiously along with a copy of this order. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : C.R.P.NO.178 OF 2007 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R