IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 CRP.No. 42 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN AS(ELECTION) IN AS.243/2008 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM OP.5/2005 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... PETITIONER-RESPONDENT-1ST RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- KOMPIPPALLIL SANTHOSH, SON OF CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, KOMPIPALLIL VEEDU, AYIKUNNAM, SOORANAD SOUTH, QUILON DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT-PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------- K.SIVAPRASAD, SON OF KUTTAN PILLAI, SARATH BHAVANAM, INCHAKKADU, SOORANADU SOUTH, QUILON DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR. K.SIJU, MR.K.VINAYAKUMAR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.191/2009 IN CRP.NO.42/2009 DISMISSED 11/06/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No.42 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 11th June, 2009 ORDER The revision is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2008 in A.S.(Election)No.243/08 on the file of the District Court, Kollam. Petitioner was the successful candidate elected from ward No.G.11 of Sooranad Grama Panchayat. The respondent challenged the election by filing Election O.P.No.5 of 2005 before the court of the Munsiff Magistrate, Sasthamcotta. For the purpose of disposing this revision petition, I need not advert to the grounds canvassed for impeaching the election of the petitioner. Suffice to say, after trial, the learned Munsiff dismissed the petition holding that it is not maintainable. The respondent preferred an appeal challenging the dismissal of the petition before the District Court, Kollam. The learned District Judge noticing that even no issue on the maintainability of the petition was raised and also that some of the conclusions formed by the learned Munsiff, on reevaluation of the materials produced, were incorrect, set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for fresh disposal. Petitioner has filed this revision impeaching the propriety, legality and correctness of that remission contending that the learned District Judge went wrong in setting aside the dismissal of the petition C.R.P.No.42/09 - 2 - and remanding the case for fresh disposal. 2. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner inviting my attention to some of the findings and observations made in the judgment rendered by the District Judge expressed the apprehension that if a trial is proceeded before the trial court on the basis of the remission ordered, necessarily and inevitably such observations and findings may influence the trial judge and if that happens, he cannot get fair trial and, further, it may lead to miscarriage of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that appropriate orders be passed to enable the trial judge to enter a correct decision on the materials produced without in any way influenced by the findings and observations made in the impugned judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that already four years have elapsed and in the interest of justice, an order be passed directing the District Judge to pass a final order in the election petition rather than remitting the case for fresh disposal before the court below. Whatever be the merits of the grievance canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent with respect to the delay in disposal of the petition, the course suggested by him cannot be C.R.P.No.42/09 - 3 - followed for more than one reason. Petition was dismissed as not maintainable by the trial judge without even framing an issue and it is also pointed out that he has not entered any finding on another issue which was raised. When that be so, no direction can be given to the District Judge to pass final order in the petition. Further more, the respondent has not challenged the remand order passed by the District Judge. Having regard to the facts and circumstances presented and the submissions made by the counsel, I find, the interest of justice demand issuing of appropriate directions to the trial judge for a fair disposal of the election petition. I direct the learned Munsiff to dispose the election petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on the materials already produced by both sides, but, untrammelled by any of the observations and finding made by the learned District Judge in the judgment rendered in A.S.(Election) No.243 of 2008. Communicate a copy of the order to the court below forthwith. The revision is disposed as above. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE C.R.P.No.42/09 - 4 -