IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 525 of 2008() --------------------- CMA.10/2007 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,ATTINGAL OS.99/2006 of MUNSIFF COURT,ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: ------------------------------------- 1. RAJENDRA BABU, S/O.GOPALAN, POOVATHUR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMAL DESOM, PAZHAYAKKUNNUMMAL VILLAGE. 2. RAJENDRA PRASAD, S/O.GOPALAN,POOVATHUR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMAL DESOM, PAZHAYAKKUNNUMMAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENTSRESPONDENTS: --------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.AYYAKUTTY, VANATHIL VEEDU, MUTHUVILA DESOM, KALLARA VILLAGE. 2. GOPINATHAN, S/O.AYYAKUTTY, KODUMANKUZY VEEDU, PARAPPIL DESOM, KALLARA VILLAGE. 3. SUDHA, W/O.VAMADEVAN, LOJA VILASOM, MUTHUVILA DESOM, KALLARA VILLAGE. 4. LOLA, D/O.VAMADEVAN, LOJA VILASOM, MUTHUVILA DESOM, KALLARA VILLAGE. 5. ANEEJA, D/O.VAMADEVAN, LOJA VILASOM, MUTHUVILA DESOM, KALLARA VILLAGE. 6. ANOOP, D/O.VAMADEVAN, LOJA VILASOM, MUTHUVILA DESOM, KALLARA VILLAGE. 7. YESODHA, W/O.UPENDRAN, KUNNILPUTHEN VEEDU, VANCHIYOOR, ALAMODE VILLAGE. 8. ABILASH, S/O.UPENDRAN, KUNNILPUTHEN VEEDU, VANCHIYOOR, ALAMODE VILLAGE. CRP.No.525/08 2 9. SARASWATHY, D/O.PARVATHY, POOVATHOOR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL DESOM & VILLAGE. 10. LALITHA, D/O.DAMAYANTHI, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KODAMPLACHY, PARAPPIL, KALLARA VILLAGE. 11. LALITHAMBIKA, D/O.DAMAYANTHI, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KODAMPLACHY, PARAPPIL, KALLARA VILLAGE. 12. LOHITHAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KODAMPLACHY, PARAPPIL, KALLARA VILLAGE. 13. ANILKUMAR, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KODAMPLACHY, PARAPPIL, KALLARA VILLAGE. 14. LEENAKUMARI, D/O.DAMAYANTHI, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KODAMPLACHY, PARAPPIL, KALLARA VILLAGE. 15. MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN,POOVATHOOR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL DESOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE. 16. VASANTHAKUMARI, D/O.THANKAMMA, POOVATHOOR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL DESOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE. 17. CHANDRIKA, D/O.THANKAMMA, POOVATHOOR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL DESOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE. 18. INDIRA, D/O.THANKAMMA, POOVATHOOR VEEDU, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL DESOM, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.525 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 8th July, 2008. O R D E R Petitioners are the defendants and respondents the plaintiffs in O.S.No.99 of 2006, on the file of Munsiff Court, Attingal. I.A.No.571 of 2006 was filed by the respondents under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of Code of Civil Procedure for an order of temporary injunction, till disposal of the suit, restraining respondents from re- claiming the plaint schedule paddy field without sanction of the District Collector and also from constructing structures in the property. As per order dated 23.3.2007, learned Munsiff allowed the application. Petitioners challenged that order before Sub Court, Attingal. Under order dated 27.5.2008, learned Sub Judge confirmed the order and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. CRP.No.525/2008 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that before the trial court and appellate court, petitioners have undertaken to remove the structures, if ultimately a decree is granted in favour of the respondents, and in such circumstances, courts below should not have restrained petitioners from constructing the building, as it would cause much hardship to the petitioners who had invested money for construction of the building. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the orders passed by courts below, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference. The courts below found a prima facie case in favour of the respondents. So also, the balance of convenience and irreparable injury was recorded in their favour. Based on their undertaking, petitioners cannot be allowed to construct the building, as ultimately if the suit is decreed in favour of respondents-plaintiffs, it would cause much difficulties. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the courts below. The learned Munsiff is directed to dispose CRP.No.525/2008 3 the suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.