IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2008 / 14TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 20419 of 2007(E) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/09/2006 IN IA 14/2006 IN OS.550/2003 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT,CHERTHALA .................... PETITIONER: -------------- THE MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.S.45/71, CHERTHALA TALUK, CHERTHALA P.O., 688 524, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY - BABU JOHN. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. R.JAYAKUMAR, S/O. RAMAN KUTTY, MATTAMANAVELI, C.M.C. 20, CHERTHALA VADAKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. 2. HARIHARAN NAIR, S/O. MUKUNTHESWARA PANICKER, PAMANA VEEDU, C.S.P. III, CHERTHALA VADAKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. 3. SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN, SANTHINIKETHAN, C.S.P.V., CHERTHALA THEKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R2 & R3 BY ADV SRI.C.H.CHANDRABHANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 20419/07 1 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.C. No 20419 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd April 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred against the order of the Munsiff whereby he had dismissed the review application I.A. No 14 of 2006 in O.S. NO 550 OF 2003 and I.A. No 15 of 2006 in the same suit. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Munsiff would reveal that he has proceeded with the matter as if the disposal of the case is by the Adalat. A perusal of the judgment, Ext. P1, would show that the judgment was pronounced by the civil court holding that the suit was not pressed and hence dismissed. So it is the judgment of the civil court that is sought to be reviewed now. I am not going into the merits of the petition or the grounds of review stated, but the matter requires consideration whether it comes within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may not be correct to hold that since it is an award of the Lok Adalat it cannot be reviewed. It is very clear from Ext P1 that the judgment has been rendered by civil court irrespective of the fact whether it is referred to the Adalat WPC 20419/07 2 for negotiation or not. Therefore, I direct the court below to consider the review application and the delay condonation application afresh and dispose it of in accordance with law, after permitting the parties in case of necessity to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN Judge 03/04/2008 en [true copy]