IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 31 of 2011(O) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OPC.574/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.1 IN OP ------------------------------------------------------ PUTHENPURAYHIL BHARATHI AMMA, D/O. GOPALAN ADIYODI, RESIDING AT 'DEEPASREE' HOUSE, CHRODE AMSOM, ERAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK-673106. BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 IN OP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. E.P.SASIDHARAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMA KURUP, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL VELLOOR AMSOM, KAKKANCHERY DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK-673106. 2. PUTHENPURAYIL SARALA DIVAKARAN, D/O. KUNHIRAMA KURUP, RESIDING AT 'PRASANTH' HOUSE PANOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, THALASSERY-670692. 3. PUTHENPURAYIL SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. RAJAGOPALAN, RESIDING AT 'DEEPASREE HOUSE CHRODE AMSOM, ERAPURAM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK, PIN-673106. 4. PUTHENPURAYIL DEEPA D/O. DO- IN DO-DO- 5. PRAVEEN, S/O. DIVAKARAN, RESIDING AT PRASANTH HOUSE, PANOOR AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670692. 6. PRASANTH, S/O. DO. RESIDING IN DO-DO- BY ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No.31 of 2011 in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of January, 2011 ORDER This petition is filed by respondent No.1 in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010. Prayer is to review the judgment dated November 4, 2010 in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010. That was a petition filed by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.14 of 2006 and plaintiff in O.S.No.25 of 2009 of the Sub Court, Vadakara. In the former suit, petitioner in the review petition sought partition of three items. Respondent No.1 as defendant No.2 in that suit contended that item Nos.1 and 2 in the said suit are thavazhy properties but item No.3 is not a thavazhy property which is partible among the parties to that suit. In the light of that contention, petitioner filed I.A.No.6 of 2009 and item No.3 was deleted from the plaint schedule. Later, respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.25 of 2009 for partition of the said item. Respondent No.1 then filed application in O.S.No.14 of 2006 for consolidation of the two suits contending that a portion of item No.1 property in O.S.No.14 of 2006 is included in the property scheduled in O.S.No.25 of 2009. That petition was R.P.No.31 of 2011 in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 -: 2 :- dismissed by the learned Sub Judge which respondent No.1 and others challenged in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010. This court dismissed the petition at the admission stage making it clear that it will be open to respondent No.1 if law provides, to raise a contention as to availability of that much extent of property which according to respondent No.1 is part of the suit property in O.S.No.25 of 2009 in the course of the final decree proceedings in O.S.No.14 of 2006. Respondents in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 are aggrieved by the said observation and have filed this application for review contending that based on the said observation, respondents in the review petition are taking steps to reopen the final decree proceedings where enquiry is over and the matter is posted for hearing. It is submitted by learned counsel that it is without hearing petitioners that this court made the said observation which in effect enables respondents to seek reopening of the entire proceedings. I have heard learned counsel for respondent No.1 also. 2. This court disposed of the original petition at the admission stage without hearing petitioner. In the nature of the contentions raised by petitioner in this petition for review, I consider it just and proper that judgment dated November 4, R.P.No.31 of 2011 in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 -: 3 :- 2010 is reviewed and O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 is posted for hearing on admission. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the judgment dated November 4, 2010 in O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 is reviewed and recalled. Registry shall post O.P(C).No.574 of 2010 for hearing on admission before the appropriate Bench. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-