IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 362 of 2008() ---------------------------- PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. S.A.B.S. ADORATION CONVENT, MAMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY REPRESENTED BY THE MOTHER SUPERIOR. 2. MOTHER ANIT CHALANGADI, PROVINCIAL HOUSE, KOOTHRAPPALLY. 3. SISTER RITTY, HEAD MISTRESS, SAINT SHANTALS HIGH SCHOOL, MAMMOODU, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SMT.ELIZABETH MATHAI IDICULLA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS/ PLAINTIFFS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. AGNUSAMMA, KUDAKASSERIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY MURI, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. PHILIP, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLY, CHANGANACHERRY. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. NO. 362 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff, Changanacherry in I.A.313/08 in O.S.258/06. It was an application seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The suit is one with respect to a way which is said to be a public pathway. The Court below recorded that the counsel for the defendants submit that there is no written objection. But the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has produced before the Court written objection filed on 14.2.2008, i.e. certified copy of the order issued by the Court. It is seen therein that there is a written objection filed as early as on 14.2.2008. So it is clear that the Court has not considered that aspect and similarly the Court towards the end of paragraph 4 held that defendants are entitled to realise costs but in the operative portion it is written as no costs. So this is an order passed without application of mind. Therefore I set aside the order directing CRP NO. 362 of 2008 -:2:- the Court below to consider afresh the said interim application as contemplated under order 23 CPC after hearing both sides and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-