IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 2978 of 2010(V) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2009 IN IA.5360/2007 IN LAR.70/2006 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KAKKAD MANAKKL DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. MR.N.M.MADHU MS.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. K.V.NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, KAKKAD MANA, GURUVAYOOR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), GURUVAYOOR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYOOR. 3. PURUSHOTHAMAN @ DEVADAS NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KAKKAD MANAKKAL DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. 4. DAMODARAN @ JAYAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, GURUVAYOOR AMSOM,DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. MR.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R1 MS.P.G.BABITHA FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH FOR R2 MS.C.S.RAJANI FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2978 of 2010(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PARTITION DEED NO.616/1966 DTD. 28.4.1966. EXT.P2: JUDGMENT DTD. 28.2.2007 IN L.A.R.NO.70/2006 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3: REVIEW PETITION DTD. 14.9.2007 IN L.A.R.NO.70/2006 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P4: JUDGMENT DTD. 29.10.2009 IN I.A.NO.5360/2007 IN L.A.R.NO.70/2006 ON THE FILES OF II ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, THRISSUR. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.2978 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur in I.A.No.5360/2007 in L.A.R.No.70/2006 and for a direction to the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur to conduct joint trial of L.A.R.Nos.47/2007 & 70/2006 on the files of the same court. 2. The petitioner filed I.A.No.5360/2007 in L.A.R.No.70/2006 seeking to review the judgment dated 28.2.2007. The petitioner is not a party in L.A.R.No.70/2006. It is averred in the writ petition that in the partition executed between the members of the family in 1966, the property held by the family was divided among two branches. The 1st respondent is the member of the 1st sakha. The petitioner and respondents 3 & 4 are the members of 2nd sakha. As per Ext.P1 partition deed of 1966, 5/12 shares was allotted to the 1st sakha as A schedule and 7/12 share was allotted to the 2nd sakha as B schedule. The total extent of property covered by the partition deed is 6 cents. The said 6 cents was divided between the 2 sakhas. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.2978 Of 2010 3. The 6 cents of land covered by the partition deed was acquired by the Government for Guruvayoor Devaswom. It is pointed out that though the total extent in the partition deed is shown as 6 cents, on measurement the extent was found to be 6.5 cents. Separate proceedings were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of passing the award in respect of the separate items held by the sakhas. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the two cases separately for apportionment. L.A.R.No.68/21006 is the reference case relating to the property belonging to the 1st sakha represented by the 1st respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner came to know about the two separate land acquisition references later. It is stated that on enquiry it is understood that as per the order in L.A.R.No.70/2006 the entire compensation for 1.63 Ares was ordered to be disbursed to the 1st respondent whereas he was eligible for only 5/12 shares. The total extent is 6.5 cents. It is also understood that in the connected L.A.R.No.68/2006, the only balance extent excluding the 4 cents covered by L.A.R.No.70/2006, is included in the reference case. In these ::3:: W.P.(C).No.2978 Of 2010 circumstances, the petitioner approached the reference court for review of the judgment dated 28.2.2007 in L.A.R.No.70/2006. Ext.P3 is the review petition. The learned Sub Judge entertained the review petition and the parties are allowed to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The petitioner was examined as PW1. Exts.A1 to A13 were marked in I.A.No.5360/2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that after taking evidence and after hearing the counsel on both sides, instead of deciding the matter on merits based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the court dismissed the review petition holding that the review petition is not maintainable since the petitioner did not file a petition for impleading himself as a respondent in L.A.R.No.70/2006. Thus, the court below disposed of I.A.No.5360/2007 not on merits, but, accepting the technical plea that the review petition is not maintainable for the reason that no impleading petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. It is not disputed that L.A.R.No.70/2006 was disposed of by judgment dated 28.2.2007. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a party in that proceeding. The observation of the court that ::4:: W.P.(C).No.2978 Of 2010 the remedy open to him is to file an impleading petition in L.A.R.No.70/2006 seems to be not correct. The petitioner cannot file any application, including application for impleading, in a disposed case in which he is not a party. The remedy open to him in the aforesaid circumstances, is to file a review petition seeking review of the judgment in L.A.R.No.70/2006. If the petitioner is able to convince the court that the judgment and decree passed in L.A.R.No.70/2006 is unsustainable for the reasons canvassed by him, the review petition can be allowed and the judgment can be recalled. In that event the petitioner can apply for impleading himself as a party respondent in L.A.R.No.70/2006. Unless and until L.A.R.No.70/2006 is reopened, it is not possible for the petitioner to agitate his contentions in the case. 5. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration. Accordingly, Ext.P4 order is quashed. It is pointed out that oral and documentary evidence were closed and the mater was heard. In these circumstances, this Court direct the II Additional Sub Court, Thrissur, to consider ::5:: W.P.(C).No.2978 Of 2010 I.A.No.5360/2007 afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-