IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 287 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/11/2007 IN IA.2671/2007 IN OS.764/2002 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS: ----------------------------------------- 1. JAGADAMMA, W/O.LATE THANKAPPAN, AGED 75 YEARS, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SNEHALATHA, D/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 3. SUMANGALA, D/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 4. KUNJUMON, S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 5. ASOKAN, S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. SHAJIMON, S/O.LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 7. SASIKALA, D/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 8. SINDU, D/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 9. ASHA, D/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, KATTUNKAL HOUSE, VANDANAM MURI,PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK CRP NO.287/2008 RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. DHYANASUDHAN, PUTHENPARAMBIL, VANDANAM MURI, PUNNAPRA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. PRAKASH, GREEN VALLI, PORVARIOM, GOA STATE. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. No.287 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of March 2008 O R D E R This revision petition is preferred against the order of the Addl.Munsiff, Alappuzha in I.A.No.2671 of 2007 in O.S.No.764 of 2002. The brief facts are that the plaintiffs are the revision petitioners. Their suit was dismissed for default. Thereafter it was restored on payment of costs. But the cost was not paid and therefore the application for restoration was dismissed. Thereafter an application was filed to review the order. Though it is filed under Order 151 C.P.C., I will consider it as an application under Order 47 Rule 1 to find out whether there are any grounds. Under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C there must be an error apparent on the face of the record, or the person in spite of due diligence is not able to produce materials before court or for any other sufficient reasons. When an application is allowed on payment of cost and the amount is not paid and when the petition is dismissed, there are other remedies open to the party to challenge CRP 287/2008 -:2:- the said finding. Leaving open that right to the petitioners, I dismiss this civil revision petition. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-