IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 CRP NO. 487 OF 2010() -------------------------------- CMA.47/2010 OF I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM OS.1955/2009 OF III ADDL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM (IA.10864/2009) .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARIYAMMA @ SUSI, W/O.MANI, AILINE VIEW, NEAR AIRPORT ROAD, VAKKAKKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MANI, H/O.SUSI, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUSTINE JOHN, S/O.SAMUEL JOHN FELIX, T.C.34/1564(6), HAPPY HOME, VAKKAKKADAVU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== C.R.P. NO.487 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No.1955 of 2009 of the court of learned Munsiff, Thiruvananthapuram. That is a suit for injunction filed by the respondent to restrain petitioners from demolishing southern boundary wall of plaint B schedule and annexing any portion of that property. Respondent obtained an order of temporary injunction against petitioners on I.A. No.10864 of 2009. Petitioners challenged that order in C.M.A. No.47 of 2010. Learned Additional District Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram modified the order of injunction. Petitioners are not satisfied and have filed this revision. 2. I have heard learned counsel on the maintainability of this revision. According to the learned counsel if this revision and consequently the C.M. Appeal are allowed and it is found that there is no such way, that will have the effect of deciding the suit in favour of the petitioners. I am afraid, I cannot give my assent to that argument. Under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) power of the High Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction over orders passed in a suit or other C.R.P. No.487 of 2010 -: 2 :- proceedings is subject to the proviso to Sec.115 of the Code. A revision is maintainable only if the revision if accepted and allowed would have the effect of final disposal of the suit or other proceeding. Here even if the argument of petitioners is accepted that would have only the effect of finally disposing of I.A. No.10864 of 2009 and that does not in any way affect the sustainability of the suit. Hence this revision petition is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed without prejudice to the right if any of petitioners to challenge the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly this revision is dismissed as not maintainable without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioners. Registry shall return the documents if any produced to the counsel for petitioners on request. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv