IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 534 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMA.12/2008 of SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS : ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.P. PETER, S/O.POULOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, MEKKUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VIANGU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM 2. NIDHIA PETER, D/O.M.P.PETER, AGED 23 YEARS, MEKKUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VIANGU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM 3. RUBY PETER, W/O.M.P. PETER, AGED 48 YEARS, MEDDUMKUNNEL HOUSE, VIANGU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------------------------------- M.C. JACOB, MANAGING PARTNER, KITEX LIMITED, KIZHAKKAMBALAM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRP.No. 534 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is filed, challenging the order in I.A.818 of 2008 in CMA 12 of 2008 on the file of Sub Court, Perumbavoor. The said petition was filed under Rule 5 of Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure to stay the operation of the order in M.C.26 of 1996 dated 9.10.1997 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that under Annexure-E order of this court, learned Single Judge held that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure will have no value, if civil court passes an order making arrangement on possession of the property and when petitioners have instituted a suit and sought an order, learned Sub Judge should have granted an order of stay, prohibiting dispossession of petitioners. It was argued that though the order in M.C.26 of 1996 was confirmed upto the Apex Court, the jurisdiction of civil court is not taken away and therefore learned Sub Judge should have granted an order. CRP 534/2008 2 3. On hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any illegality or irregularity, warranting interference in the impugned order. First of all, a revision will not lie against the impugned order which is an order passed in an interlocutory application in the CMA, by the learned Sub Judge which itself is an appeal against another interlocutory order. Moreover, the order sought to be stayed is the one which was challenged before this court as well as the Apex Court and upheld. When this court dismissed the revision filed by petitioners, challenging the order in M.C 26 of 1996, as per order dated 27.9.2007 and petitioners were granted six months time to vacate the property, attempt of the petitioners is to cling on to that possession which cannot be permitted. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-