IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 1003 of 2009 --------------------------------- JUDGEMENT IN SA.507/2002 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: LEELA ALIAS AMMMUKUTTY, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.CHILLAKKUTTY, NADUVATTAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. KURIKKALKANDI KARTHIAYANI, AGED 78 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.VELU, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. KURIKKALKANDI KUMARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KURIKKALKANDI VELU, DO. DO. 3. KURIKKALKANDI RAMESHAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KURIKKALKANDI VELU, DO. DO. 4. KURIKKALKANDI RAVEENDRAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.KURIKKALKANDI VELU, DO. DO. 5. THALLARAKKAL VALSALA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.KURIKKALKANDI VELU, OLAVANNA AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. THAZHATH VEETTIL AJITHA, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O.KURIKKALKANDI VELU, AZHINHILAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 7. MUTHIREKKALAYIL SARADA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.THEVARA BALAN, MALAPARAMBA, KOZHIKODE. 8. K.BABY, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.K.P.GOPALAN, DO. DO. 9. P.SREENIVASAN, S/O.GANAPATHY, FEROKE AMSOM, NALLUR DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 10. PRANGOTTU IMBICHI AHAMMED, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, DO. DO. 11. P.SREEMATHI, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, FEROKE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 12. JAMMU, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.P.SREEMATHI, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN FOR R1 & 4 SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH FOR R1 & 4 SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR FOR R1 & 4 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- C.M.Appl.No.833/2009 & I.A.No.557/2008 & R.P.No.1003 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Second appeal was dismissed on 27.2.2008 for the failure to take steps in spite of specific orders from 2005 onwards. The steps to be taken were notice to the tenth respondent and to implead the legal heirs of third respondent. C.M.Appl.No. 833/2009 was filed to condone the delay of 529 days in filing the review petition. The review petition is filed to review the judgment dismissing the appeal contending that appellant/petitioner had already filed I.A.No.557/2008 for impleading the legal heirs of the third respondent, but, it was omitted to be taken note of. 2. I.A.No.557/2008 is not an application for impleading, but only a verified application filed by the counsel praying for three weeks further time RP 1003/09 2 to take steps to implead the legal heirs of the third respondent contending that in spite of registered notice, information has not been received from the party. Therefore, when I.A.No. 557/2008 is not an application for impleading, appellant/petitioner cannot file the petition to review the judgment dismissing the appeal on the ground that steps are taken. In spite of the fact that review petition was filed more than 500 days after the dismissal of the appeal, even along with the application no impleading petition was filed. So also, even steps to issue notice to tenth respondent was not taken. In such circumstances, both petitions can only be dismissed. In the result, C.M.Appl.No.833/2009 is dismissed. Consequently, the review petition is also dismissed. 27th July, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv RP 1003/09 3 M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- R.P.No.1003 of 2009 in S.A.No.507 of 2002 -------------------------- ORDER 27th July, 2010