IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2010 / 4TH ASHADHA 1932 CRP.No. 317 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2010 IN IA 388/10 & 389/10 IN LAR.362/1988 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOLLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/CLAIMANT ---------------------------------------- S.MONYAMMA, KIZHAKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, MULAVANA, KANJIRAKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI P.R.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.317 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. ORDER This revision petition is preferred by the claimant in L.A.R. No.362 of 1988 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Kollam claiming enhanced land value for the land acquired for respondent. Reference happened to be dismissed on 19.03.2002. In the year 2010, petitioner filed I.A.Nos.3888 of 2010 and 389 of 2010 for restoration of the reference dismissed for default and to condone the delay. Learned Additional Sub Judge was not inclined to condone the delay and consequently the applications to condone the delay and for restoration of the reference were dismissed. That common order is under challenge in this petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for respondent on the maintainability of the revision petition in view of the remedy of appeal provided under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). 3. Section 59 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”) states that except in so far they may be inconsistent with anything contained in that Act, the provisions of the Code shall apply to all proceedings before the court under that Act. Section 41 of the Act states that provisions of the Code subject to the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder shall apply to all CRP No.317/2010 2 proceedings before court. There is nothing in the Act which is inconsistent with the power of the Appellate Authority to entertain an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (c) of the Code from an order refusing to restore a reference dismissed for default. Referring to the said provisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Trichur Range Gold Workers' Union v. State of Kerala (1974 (2) ILR Kerala 280) while considering a similar situation has held that when the reference for enhanced compensation is dismissed for default (under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code) application for its restoration is maintainable and if that application is dismissed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code is maintainable. If that be so remedy available to the petitioner is not by way of a Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the Code but to approach the appropriate forum with an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(c) of the Code. Hence without prejudice to that right of the petitioner, this revision petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks