IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 CRP.No. 489 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------- CMA.14/2007 of SUB COURT, TIRUR OS.265/1999 of MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: 1. POOLAKKAL SUBRAMANIAN, S/O LATE THAMI, VALIYAKUNNU AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. 2. POOLAKKAL SAROJINI, D/O DO. DO. 3. POOLAKKAL VASANTHA, D/O DO. DO. 4. POOLAKKAL SARASWATHI, D/O DO. DO. 5. POOLAKKAL SUMA, D/O DO. DO. 6. POOLAKKAL SUDHAKARAN, S/O DO. DO. 7. KALI, W/O LATE POOLAKKAL THAMI, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANNUNNI(SR.) SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT: K.CHANDRIKA, W/O MANCHERI, VELUTHEDATH VISWANATHAN NAIR, TIRUR TALUK, VALIYAKUNNU AMSOM DESOM. ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.R.P.No.489 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER This revision petition is filed by the petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No. 265/99 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Tirur. The suit is stated to be one for eviction of the petitioners from their residential house. The suit was decreed ex parte on 21.8.2006. Petitioners filed I.A.No.1765/06 before the trial court to get the ex parte decree set aside and the said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 6.3.2007. Against the said order, petitioners filed C.M.A.No.14/07 before the Sub Court, Tirur and that was dismissed vide judgment dated 31.5.2008. It is assailing the order of the trial court on I.A.No.1765/06 in O.S.No.265/99 and the judgment of the first appellate court in C.M.A. No.14/07 that this revision is filed. 2. Counsel for the respondent also entered appearance and submissions of both the counsel were CRP 489/08 2 heard. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that against the rejection of kukikidappu application filed by them, A.A.No.224/00 was filed before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thrissur and that was dismissed on 13.3.2006 and against that order, a revision was filed before this Court on 26.5.2006 with c.f.No.3583, but that the said file is missing in this Court and that therefore, petitioners could not get any relief from that revision. In view of the said submission, the office was directed to verify and report whether any revision had been filed as is submitted. Office has reported that revision in fact was filed on 26.5.2006 against the order in A.A.No.224/00 with filing No.3583, but the same was returned as defective on 11.10.2006, vide Defect No.10550/06 of defect register and that on verification of the re-presentation register and defect register, the same is not seen re-presented thereafter. Hence, the grievance that tenancy right CRP 489/08 3 claimed independently by filing application before the Land Tribunal could not be taken up to this Court, when it was concurrently dismissed by the Land Tribunal as also by the appellate authority is not a grievance that can be countenanced and the petitioners have to blame themselves. 4. As regards the claim of the petitioners to have the ex parte decree set aside also, I do not see much merit. The suit is one of the year 1999. The court below has observed that it was on account of non co-operation of the petitioners that the dismissal of the suit could not be had on merits. When the suit was listed in 2002, they remained ex parte. Then also, petition to set aside the ex parte decree was filed and that was allowed. Again, when the suit was listed in the year 2006, the petitioners remained absent and ex parte and the suit was again decreed ex parte. The court below has further observed that the petitioners were claiming kudikidappu right over the property CRP 489/08 4 involved in the suit and their prayer for issuance of purchase certificate was dismissed by the Land Tribunal and the said dismissal was upheld by the appellate authority as well. It is the said decision of the appellate authority that was attempted to be assailed before this Court by filing a revision. But the revision was defective and despite return of the same for curing the defects, they have not re-presented the revision. When the claim of the petitioners, who were the defendants in the suit, which was decreed ex parte, was that they are entitled to kudikidappu right and are entitled to purchase the same and it is found that the said right independently agitated before the appropriate forum and the appellate authority were dismissed and it is not prosecuted further, there is no merit in the contentions of the petitioners and the very same contentions cannot also be agitated afresh in the suit. It is probably for that reason that they have abstained from CRP 489/08 5 contest and are filing petitions to set aside the ex parte decree when once the decree is passed ex parte. The evidence adduced on the side of the petitioners have been discussed threadbare by the trial court in the order dismissing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The courts below have concurrently considered the matter and found that the petition to set aside the ex parte decree is ill conceived and is devoid of any merit. There is no reason for this Court to take a different view on the facts and circumstances emerging from the records available. In the result, I dismiss this CRP. 17th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv