IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.NO. 912 OF 2011() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OPC.3679/2011 DATED 22/11/2011 REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN RP/ RESPONDENT NO.1 IN OP ------------------------------------------------------------ MARY IRIN @ RANI MATHEW @ RANI ABEY VARGHESE, PANATHIL HOUSE, A.K.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RES. IN R.P./PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NO.2 IN OP -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRABHAVATHY AMMA, W/O. GOPI, PRABHAVILASAM, V.P. 1/50, OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, A.K.G.NAGAR ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005. 2. R.GOPI, S/O. RAJAPPAN, RESIDING AT -DO- -DO-, PIN-695 005. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P No.912 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.3679 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 21st day of December, 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the first respondent in O.P(C) No.3679 of 2011 for review of judgment dated 22.11.2011 interfering with the observation made by the Tribunal that the question of summoning the Revenue Inspector would arise only after respondents in this petition adduced evidence to show that actual cost of construction of the building and making it clear that in the course of their evidence it will be open to the respondents to summon the Revenue Inspector as their witness and examine him touching upon the report he has submitted. Learned counsel for review petitioner submitted that there was some delay in filing the Vakalath on behalf of petitioner, by which time, the Original Petition was disposed of by this Court. According to the learned counsel there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as respondents are obliged to show that report submitted by the Revenue Inspector is not correct. 2. I have heard learned counsel for respondents as well. 3. The question this Court considered in O.P. No.3679 of R.P. No.912 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.3679 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2011 was whether the Tribunal was justified in making a rider that the question of respondents examining of the Revenue Inspector as to the correctness of his report would arise only after respondents adduced evidence to show cost of construction of the building. This Court referred to the various decisions on the point and held that there is no reason to fix such a rider on the right of the respondents to examine the Revenue Inspector; but made it clear that respondents can adduce evidence in support of their contention and in the course of such evidence summon the Revenue Inspector also as witness on their side to show that his report is not correct. Having heard counsel on both sides, I do not find reason to review the judgment under challenge. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondents have not appeared to give evidence in support of their contentions and that the matter is being prolonged notwithstanding that there is an earlier order passed by this Court for time bound disposal of the proceeding. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that instruction given to him is that respondents have already filed their witness schedule and that R.P. No.912 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.3679 of 2011 -: 3 :- they are ready to commence their evidence from 23.12.2011 onwards. That submission is recorded. Respondents are directed to adduce their evidence as early as possible so that further delay in the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal could be avoided. Review Petition is closed with a direction to the respondents to adduce their evidence before the Tribunal as early as possible. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv