IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 243 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2005 IN IA.3022/05, IA.3023/05 IN LAR.219/1998 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT: ---------------------------------------- MADHAVIKUTTY PILLAI, VALLIYATHU VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, NEDUVILE MURI, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010 ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.245/07 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.NOS.243, 245, 255, 292, 284, 302 & 425 OF 2007 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 O R D E R These revisions are filed by some claimants against the awards passed by the reference court, Sub Court, Kollam. Such awards having been passed in their absence, these claimants moved applications under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the awards. The reference court noticing that the awards had been passed on merit, declined the request made by the claimants and dismissed their application. Propriety and correctness of the orders so passed by the reference court are challenged in these revisions. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners taking note that the reference court had answered the reference on merit, requested for withdrawing the revisions so that the claimants can challenge the awards as C.R.P.NOS.243, 245, 255, 292, 284, 302 & 425 OF 2007 2 provided by law by preferring appeals for setting aside the awards seeking remission of the case to have further opportunity to establish their case. Considering the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made, I find the withdrawal sought for has to be allowed as there is no circumstance indicating that the claimants have not been prosecuting the revisions bona fide. Claimants, no doubt, can also canvass for exemption of the period during which these revisions were pending before this Court while preferring the appeals from the awards passed by the reference court. Subject to the observations made above, the revisions are dismissed as withdrawn. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp