IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP(C).No. 3515 of 2011(O) ------------------------------------- [O.P.(MH).NO.910/2009 OF VI- ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K.S. BALACHANDRA PANICKER, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. SANKARAN KUNJU, KUMMANOTTU MADOM, KUMMANOTTU KARA, PATTIMATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- KAVUKUTTY KUNJAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, D/O. LATE PAPPIKUNJAMMA, KUMMANODU MADOM, KUMMANODU, PATTIMATTOM POST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 562. BY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(C).NO.3515/2011-O: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2011 IN O.P (MH) 910 OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P2- TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 05/08/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT-P3- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION (COUNTER AFFIDAVIT) FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(C) No.3515 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT This petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MH) No.910 of 2009 of the court of learned VI Additional District Judge, Ernakulam. It is stated that the said Original Petition was allowed by Ext.P1, order dated 12.03.2010 and later respondent filed an application for review. Though in the Original Petition it is stated that petition for review of the order was made over to the learned Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, learned counsel after getting instruction has submitted that the Original Petition was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge on 12.03.2011 which is sought to be reviewed in the same court. 2. In the light of the above submission, the prayer made in this Original Petition for a direction to the learned VI Additional District Judge not to hear the matter and to pass on the file to the learned Principal District Judge, Ernakulam does not survive for consideration. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the application for review is pending before the VI Additional District Judge. Petitioner has a contention that there is no provision for review of the order in the Mental Health Act. That is a matter which the learned VI Additional District Judge has to consider while deciding the application for review. Having regard to the OP(C)No.3515/2011 2 circumstances stated, I am inclined to think that the learned VI Additional District Judge has to dispose of the application for review if preliminary steps on that application are over, and there is no legal impediment in its disposal, as early as possible. With the above direction this Original Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks