IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 342 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4083/2010 Dated 09/02/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MOLLY ANTONY, WIFE OF ANTONY KALAYIL, CHAKKITTAPRA AMSOM, PILLA PERUVANNA DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA SMT.D.S.THUSHARA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JOHN, SON OF OUSEPH, CHENAPARAMBIL KUNNEL HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA VILLAGE, PANTHANAGADI DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, AREEKOD, VETTILAPPARA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SHRI BINOY RAM R2 BY G.P. SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.342/2010 in W.P.(C) No. 4083/2010 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010. O R D E R The review petitioner is not a party to the writ petition. She is the daughter of the writ petitioner. In the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, it was pointed out that he is the beneficiary of Ext.P1 will executed by his late wife dated 12.2.1996. He wanted to produce the document for its registration and seeking for appropriate direction, the writ petition was filed. Accordingly, a direction was issued by this Court to take appropriate action on production of the document. The said direction was issued after hearing the learned Govt. Pleader. 2. It is pointed out in the review petition that with regard to the very same property, the review petitioner has already instituted a suit as O.S. No. 22/2010 before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri for partition. Apart from that, even before the filing of the suit, a lawyer notice was issued to the first respondent/writ petitioner and a reply notice was sent by the writ petitioner. It is pointed out that serious prejudice will be caused if the direction issued in the writ petition is complied with and an opportunity is not given to the review petitioner to contest the prayers in the writ petition itself. RP 342/2010 2 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that this Court has not decided anything on the merits and the direction is only to produce the document for registration and to take follow up action by the Sub Registrar and it will not prejudice to the right of the review petitioner, if any. 4. Since the writ petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to register Ext.P1 will as per the provisions laid down in Sections 40 and 41 of the Registration Act, in the light of the contentions raised by the review petitioner, the review petitioner is a proper party to be impleaded in the writ petition as a respondent. Since the direction was issued without hearing the review petitioner, and as the contentions raised by the review petitioner has also to be considered before disposing of the writ petition, the judgment has to be recalled. Therefore, the review petition is allowed. The judgment is recalled. Post the writ petition before the appropriate court. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/