IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 RSA.No. 322 of 2010() ------------------------------- AS.164/2004 of I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM OS.113/2000 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT AND PLAINTIFF IN O.S. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SHEELA AJITH KUMAR, D/O.JAYAPALAN, ARKA NILAYAM, VAZHUTHACADU DESOM, CHENGAZHACHERRY VILLAGE, THYCAD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA, SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI, SRI.M.R.ANISON, SRI.P.N.APPUKUTTAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND DEFENDANTS IN O.S.: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE REVENUE RECOVERY, TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, (RR), MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 TO R5 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.L.G. SURESH BABU. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- RSA No.322 of 2010-E ------------------------------------- Dated 20th May 2010 Judgment On the allegation that in respect of the debts due from the appellant's husband, her property was being proceeded with under the revenue recovery proceedings, the suit was laid for injunction. 2. The Trial Court has noticed that during the pendency of the suit, it was represented before the Court that the debts due from the appellant's husband, have been discharged and the revenue recovery proceedings initiated have been withdrawn. The State also pointed out that there was no attempt to proceed against the property of the petitioner for recovery of any dues. The Court below recorded the said submissions and dismissed the suit. The matter was carried in appeal. The Appellate Court concurred with the Judgment of the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that a notice was issued to her husband, showing her property in respect of which proceedings were to be initiated. It RSA 322/10 2 was under these circumstances, that the suit was laid. 3. Whatever that be, as no cause of action survives now, there is no need to go into that question at all. The State has already submitted that the debts in respect of which revenue recovery proceedings were initiated, have been discharged and they do not intend to proceed against the properties of the appellant. In such circumstances, nothing survives for consideration in this Second Appeal. The appellant cannot get an order of injunction for future when there are no proceedings pending or contemplated against her property. This Second Appeal is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RSA 322/10 3