IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 37383 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.P.MADHAVAN PILLAI, S/O.LATE NEELAKANTA PILLAY, "RAJASREE NILAYAM", KURUMPALA, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 501. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, (SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE), P.O.ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691 523. 2. PRABHAKARAN PILLAY, "PRASATHIYIL HOUSE, KURUMPALA, PANDALAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 501. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner had come to this Court with a grievance that the final order passed in proceedings under Chapter XB of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 138 Cr.P.C is not being executed by the authorities. Report was called for and it is now reported and very evident that the order, non execution of which is complained of, has been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta as per order dt.3.3.2000 in Revision Petition No.25 of 1994. It was then pointed out that if such an order has been passed by the court of revision, the matter must be disposed of afresh by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the Sub Divisional Magistrate has already disposed of the M.C as per order dated 09.07.2008. Thus M.C.No.90 of 1993, pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor, has now been disposed of against the petitioner. W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that no further directions are, in these circumstances, necessary in this Writ Petition and this Writ Petition may now be closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to assail the said order dt.09.07.08 in M.C.No.90 of 1993. The request is accepted. 4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I make it clear that there shall be no fetter on the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 09.07.08 in M.C.No.90 of 1993, on account of the dismissal of this Writ Petition. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/- W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 3 R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2007 ORDER The short grievance of the petitioner is that the conditional order Ext.P3, which was later made absolute by Ext.P4 order by the 1st respondent, is not being executed in spite of the repeated request of the petitioner. 2. Notice given. The learned Public Prosecutor shall take instructions from the 1st respondent. Have Exts.P6, P8 and P9 been received ? If so, what, if any, is the action taken on such petitions ? I need only mention that I expect the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to take appropriate action expeditiously for execution of the order passed-Ext.P4, unless there be any legal impediment for the same. Furnish a copy of this order to the learned Public Prosecutor. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) W.P(C).No.37383 of 2007 4 rtr/-