IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 CRP.No. 649 of 2005() --------------------- OS.177/2001 of PRL.MUNSIFF COURT,NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PLAINTIFF -------------------- SUNIL ALEX, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.RAJAYYAN, RESIDING AT CHERUPUSHPA VILASATHU VEEDU, T.C. 34/451, KANNANTHURA, KARIKKAKAM MURI, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: DEFENDANTS ----------------- 1. SANTHA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.KAMALASANAN, RESIDING AT PRASAD BHAVAN, HOUSE NO.155, LEKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, KUTTIYANI, PATHALACODE, VATTAPPARA VILLAGE. 2. KAMAL PRASAD, S/O.KAMALASANAN, AGED 14 YEARS, (MINOR) RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SANTHA. 3. SARANYA KAMAL, D/O.KAMALASANAN, AGED 14 YEARS, (MINOR) RESIDING IN THE ABOVE ADDRESS, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SANTHA. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.649 of 2005 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd June, 2008. O R D E R Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.177/2001, on the file of Principal Munsiff Court, Nedumangad, and respondents are the defendants. The suit was filed under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, contending that respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioner on 29.1.2001, while petitioner and his aunt were out of station, by breaking open the door of the building in the plaint schedule property, and that too, making use of ex parte order of temporary injunction granted by the court in O.S.No.64/01. Recovery of possession is claimed on the ground of forcible dispossession. 2. Respondents resisted the suit contending that they have been in possession of the property and petitioner was not in possession as claimed, and, therefore, Section 6 of Specific Relief Act has no application. 3. Learned Munsiff on the evidence of the petitioner, as well as respondents and the exhibits marked on both sides found that CRP No.649/05 2 what was claimed by the petitioner was that respondents forcibly dispossessed him on the strength of an ex parte order of injunction obtained in O.S.No.64/01, and under Ext.B1 judgment, court had rejected the case of petitioner that he has been in possession of the property and upheld the case of respondents that they are in possession of the property and a decree of injunction was granted. In the light of Ext.B2 decree granted in that suit which has become final, petitioner cannot contend that that he has been in possession of plaint schedule property, and was dispossessed as alleged. It is for this reason, learned Munsiff dismissed the suit. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment warranting interference invoking the powers of this Court under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.