IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 MJC.No. 25 of 2001 --------------------------- (ORDER IN CRP.NO.2323/1987) .................... PETITIONERS/ LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PETITIONERS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RUGMANI, W/O. THANKACHAMI. 2. SREENIVASAN, S/O. THANKACHAMI. 3. DEVADAS, S/O. THANKACHAMI. 4. SMITHA, D/O. THANKAMI. 5. SUMATHI, D/O. THANKACHAMI. 6. MURALIDAS, S/O. THANKACHAMI. 7. KUMARI, D/O. THAMKACHAMI. ALL RESIDING AT THEKKEKATTIL, POTHAMPADAM, MUTHALAMADA, PALGHAT. BY ADVS. MR.T.M.SUNIL, SMT.S.CHITHRA. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL WAHAB, S/O. MOHAMED SALI RAWTHER. 2. RAHIMA UMMA. 3. BALKEES. 4. SURITHA BEEVI. M.J.C. NO. 25/2001- I: 5. SAINABA BEEVI, R1 TO R6 RESIDING AT POTHENPADAM, MUTHALAMADA. 6. VENUGOPALA RAVI VARMA RAJAH, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICIAL RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, PALGHAT. 7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, TRIVANDRUM. R1, R4 & R5 BY ADV. MR. V.P.REGHURAJ. THIS MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- M.J.C.NO.25 OF 2001 () IN C.R.P.NO.2323 OF 1987 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 O R D E R The petition has been filed to set aside the dismissal of a civil revision petition dismissed as early as on 3.4.1996, treating the order as non est since the sole revision petitioner had died on 4.8.1995, a few months before the dismissal of the revision. The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased revision petitioner and they seek reliefs aforementioned, restoration of the civil revision petition after condoning the delay of 1657 days in filing the present petition. Notice on the application given, respondents 1, 4 and 5 appeared and filed a counter contending that the revision petition had been filed with a petition for condonation of delay, which was dismissed. Consequent to the dismissal of such delay petition the revision petition was also dismissed and, as such, the present petition is not maintainable either in MJC.25/01 IN C.R.P.2323/87 2 law or on facts. 2. The revision was filed against the judgment of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Thrissur, confirming the order of the land Tribunal that the petitioner in O.A.No.126/1970, is entitled to the fixity of tenure over the property covered by that proceedings and ordering for assignment of the right and title of the interest of the land owner and intermediaries on the holding in her favour. The records of the case would show that the delay petition moved to condone the revision was dismissed since there was default in taking steps despite giving sufficient opportunities for curing that defect. The delay petition was dismissed on 3.4.1996, consequent to which the revision was also dismissed. Nearly five years after the dismissal of the revision petition, as indicated above, which was still born, the legal representatives of the revision petitioner have filed the present petition setting forth a case that they were unaware of the dismissal of the revision and that the dismissal order was 'non est' as the sole revision petitioner had passed away a few months before it was dismissed. The respondents 1, 4 and 5 MJC.25/01 IN C.R.P.2323/87 3 in their counter have contended that in the suit filed before the Munsiff Court as O.S.No.374/1999 for seeking a decree of recovery of possession of the properties from the petitioners, the dismissal of the C.R.P.No.2323/1987, which is sought to be restored, was pleaded by them in the plaint presented on 12.8.1999, and, the petitioners, the defendants in the suit had filed their written statement on 27.7.2000. The present petition for restoring the revision for reasons stated above, it is contended, has been moved long after filing of such written statement. I find the petition is seen filed on 17.11.2000. Specific contentions taken by the respondents impeaching the maintainability of the petition as above remain uncontroverted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that some parallel proceedings are pending between the parties before the civil court, and as such, the restoration of the revision petition allowing the petition is essential to safeguard the interest of the petitioners and it is necessary to advance the ends of justice. I do not find any merit in the submission. The facts and circumstances involved indicate that a revision which was dismissed consequent to the dismissal of the delay petition nearly 13 MJC.25/01 IN C.R.P.2323/87 4 years ago, which was presented 22 years ago, is sought to be revived advancing a case that the order of dismissal was 'non est' since the revision petitioner had passed away before the dismissal order. Revision was not even admitted on the file of the court on the date of its dismissal, and, further, even if admitted and taken on file, no vested right accrued to the party since in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, jurisdictional error, if any, alone need be examined by the court. The plea canvassed for restoring the revision dismissed for the reason that the revision petitioner passed away before such dismissal, and as such, the order of dismissal was 'non est' is unworthy of any merit especially in the facts of the case where the revision had been dismissed even without admitting it on the file consequent to the dismissal of the delay petition. The M.J.C. is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- M.J.C.NO.25/2001 IN C.R.P.NO.2323/1987 --------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R --------------------------------------------------------- 18th June, 2009