Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Mohammed Kasian Abdul Jalal vs Mohammed Kasian Mohammed Rasheed on 3 March, 2008

Author: M.N.Krishnan

Bench: M.N.Krishnan

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 457 of 2002()


1. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL JALAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. MOHAMMED KASIAN MOHAMMED RASHEED,
                       ...       Respondent

2. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL VAHEED,

3. MOHAMMED KASIAN ABDUL BASHEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :03/03/2008

 O R D E R
                       M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                  -------------------------------------------
                         R.P.No.457 of 2002
                  -------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008



                                 ORDER

This review petition is preferred with a prayer to review the judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.3391/01 dated 1st April, 2002. The court below ordered demolition of construction done in the property. This Court considered the matter elaborately and allowed the revision on the following grounds. The court examined the decree and found that the suit has been decreed by granting a decree of injunction alone. The execution court when an application under Order XXI Rule 32 was filed declined to allow the prayer of recovery of possession but it granted an order of demolition of construction. This Court opined that such a course cannot be adopted in an injunction decree and therefore held that the court cannot do something which had happened after the decree when there is no such relief granted and therefore, set aside the order of the executing court and gave liberty to the decree holder to file a fresh E.P. in accordance with law.

Rew.P No.457/2002 2

I do not find any error apparent on the face of the records to interfere or any other reason to review the judgment and therefore, the Review petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl