IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 137 of 2006() -------------------- AGAINST ORDER IN CRP.1803/2003 Dated 11/02/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER, LOCAL OFFICE, NAGIARKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER ----------------------- P.M.ALEX, S/O.LATE P.K.MATHEW, SATHYASADANAM, MANAKKALA.P.O, ERATHU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.SAJJU.S. SRI.S.SUNIL NARAYANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ----------------------------------------------- R.P. NO. 137 OF 2006 IN C.R.P. NO. 1803 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The above Review Petition is filed by the respondent in C.R.P. No.1803 of 2003. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner has submitted that the review petitioner has raised serious contentions in the revision petition, but this Court decided the matter on merits without hearing the review petitioner. It is further submitted that when the connected case, C.R.P. No.1751 of 2003 came up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in that case submitted that C.R.P. No.1803 of 2003 filed by the respondent against the same order (O.P. (Ele.)No.200 of 1998) was allowed by this Court by order dated 11.2.2005 and that only when such a submission was made did the parties realise that though notice was issued in C.R.P. No.1803 of 2003, the same was misplaced and hence intimation could not be given to the counsel to appear for the said case and defend the same. R.P. NO.137/2006 2 2. I have noticed the fact that the order in the revision was passed without hearing the review petitioner. The reason for not hearing the petitioner is explained in the memorandum of Review Petition and also in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. I am satisfied that the reasons stated are sufficient to review the order dated 11.2.2005 in C.R.P. No.1803 of 2003. In the result, the Review Petition is allowed. The order dated 11.2.2005 in C.R.P. No.1803 of 2003 is reviewed. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ R.P. NO.137/2006 3 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. C.R.P.NO O R D E R 7TH JANUARY, 2008