IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 55 of 2011(O) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OPC.813/2010 Dated 29/11/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/4TH RESPONDENT :- --------------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KUPPIYAN HOUSE, OKKAL KARA, CHELAMOTTOM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.BASIL MATHEW SRI.K.B.SAJAN RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1-3 :- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHINY, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.RAPHAEL, CHULLY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 544. 2. RAPHAEL, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, CHULLY HOUSE, AIMURY KARA, KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 544. 3. K.V.SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, VALLOOR AKATHOOTTU HOUSE, KEEZHMADU KARA, ERUMATHALA P.O., ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, PIN-683 544. 4. SAJITHA SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O.K.V.SURENDRAN, VALLOOR AKATHOOTTU HOUSE, KEEZHMADU KARA, EAST VILLAGE, PIN-683 544. 5. K.C.MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O.CHEEKU, KAIMATHURUTHI HOUSE, PUTHENVELIKKARA KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE, PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O., PARAVOOR TALUK. ADV.MR.G.RAJAGOPAL FOR R1 & R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ R.P. No.55 of 2011 in O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 29th day of March 2011 O R D E R This petition is filed by the 4th respondent in O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010 seeking a review of judgment dated 29.11.2010 in the said Original Petition. It is stated that the case was heard and disposed of by this Court on 29.11.2010 but the same day, petitioner/4th respondent had filed vakalath in this Court. Petitioner did not get an opportunity to argue the case. He has valid contentions to be raised. Hence review is sought for. Learned counsel for petitioner/4th respondent submitted that judgment is to be reviewed and the whole matter heard afresh. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 (petitioners in O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010) contended that as directed by this Court notice was served on counsel for petitioner herein and other R.P. No.55 of 2011 in O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010 -: 2 :- respondents in the Original Petition in the trial court even as early as on 23.11.2010 and the case was heard and disposed of only on 29.11.2010. According to the learned counsel service on counsel in the trial court is a pending proceeding is sufficient under Rule 59 of the Kerala High Court Rules. It is argued that on merit also there is no scope for a review. 2. This Court on 22.11.2010 ordered in the Original Petition that notice be served on petitioner herein and other respondents in the Original Petition by speed post and also to serve notice on the counsel appearing for them in the trial court. Respondents have filed a memo dated 23.11.2010 in this Court on 25.11.2010 stating that as ordered by this Court, notice was served on the counsel for petitioner herein and other respondents in the Original Petition. So notice must have been served on 23.11.2010 or before. That amounts to valid service in view of the Rule 59 quoted above. Hence it is not as if the Original Petition R.P. No.55 of 2011 in O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010 -: 3 :- was disposed of on 29.11.2010 without notice to the petitioner. 3. Even otherwise I do not find reason to review order. Learned Munsiff had rejected the prayer of respondents 1 and 2 herein to implead petitioner and amend the plaint in view of their contention that petitioner had trespassed into a portion of the disputed property. In the connected case petitioner is made a defendant as he was found to be in possession of a portion of the property. This Court found that in the circumstances, petitioner is a necessary party to have a proper and effective adjudication of the dispute involved and hence is to be impleaded. This Court also found that on the facts and circumstances amendment prayed for by respondents 1 and 2 do not in any way alter the nature and character of the suit. This Court while disposing of the Original Petition observed that it is open to the petitioner herein and other respondents in the Original Petition to file appropriate written statement in R.P. No.55 of 2011 in O.P.(C) No.813 of 2010 -: 4 :- answer to the amended plaint. Petitioner has that opportunity. It is not as if this Court has decided the case pleaded by parties on its merit. This Court only gave respondents 1 and 2 an opportunity to amend their plaint and make petitioner also a defendant in the nature of the contentions he has raised in the connected case. If petitioner thinks that his presence in the suit in which he is impleaded as additional defendant as per the judgment of this Court is not needed, he has the option not to contest that suit. There is no error apparent on the face of record or other reason justifying a review. The R.P. is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt