IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 4890 of 2008(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- PUTHENVILA SASIDHARAN, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, KANDAKKAI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. CHELORA CHANDROTH GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, S/O.THAMBAI AMMA, AGED 72 YEARS, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, RESIDING AT AMBILERIPARA, KANDAKKAI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT 2. M.V.JANAKI, W/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, AGED 54 YEARS, MUNDAYADAN HOUSE, SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM RESIDING AT KAVUMBAI, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. 3. M.V.RAJANI, D/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, AGED 37 YEARS, MUNDAYAM HOUSE SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM RESIDING AT KAVUMBAI, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR (DT) 4. M.V.RAJENDRAN, S/O. GOPALAN NAMBIAR, PADAVIL NARAYANAN, AGED 34 YEARS, MUNDAYAM HOUSE, SREEKANDAPURAM AMSOM RESIDING AT KAVUMBAI, THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. 5. K.C.KARTHIAYINI, W/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 65 YEARS, KUNJUMBIDUKKA CHABO CHERI, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, KANDAKKAI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. W.P.(C) NO.4890/2008 6. K.C.SUDHA, D/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR AAGED 40 YEARS, KUN JUMBIDUKKA CHABOCHERI, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, KANDAKKAI P.O. THALIPARAMBA TALUK KANNUR DT. 7. K.C.SUMA, D/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 30 YEARS, KUNJUMBIDUKKA CHABOCHERI, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, KANDAKKAI P.O. THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. 8. K.C.SUSHEELA, D/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 27 YEARS, KUNJUMBIDUKKA CHABOCHERI, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, KANDAKKAI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. 9. K.C.SUHAS, S/O. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 25 YEARS, KUNJUMBIDUKKA CHABOCHERI, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, KANDAKKAI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DT. 10. CHELORA CHANDROTH NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, S/O. THAMBAI AMMA, AGED 75 YEARS, FARMER, KAYARALAM AMSOM, VELOM DESOM, RESIDING AT AMBILERIPARA, KANDAKKAI P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4890 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~~ This writ petition is preferred against the order by which the court dissmissed the application for review sought for in I.A.No.1564/2007. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits before me that the appeal was restored to file as per the order on 25.1.2006 and it came up for hearing on 16.10.2006. On that day the court directed the appellant to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) to the District Legal Service Authority and posted it to 23.10.2006. As the cost was not paid the I.A. was closed. To review that order I.A.No.1564/2007 was filed and it was dismissed as the petitioner and respondent were absent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the second order directing the appellant to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- is illegal on the basis that the court has already passed an order restoring the appeal as early as on 25.1.2006. If it is correct and if the payment of the cost is ordered on the very same I.A. then it is a mistake that requires correction by the court below. If it is some other I.A. it may have to be treated independently. The court W.P.(C) No.4890/2008 2 should not have dismissed the review application for absence of the petitioner. Therefore, I direct the court below to restore the review application, I.A.No.1564/2007 and dispose of the same after hearing both sides. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps