IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 30555 of 2008(K) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/10/2008 IN EP 168/07 IN RCP.98/1984 of PRL.M.C.,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M.JAMAL, TC.38/681, TEA SHOP POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.MYTHEEN BEEVI, DO.DO. 3. M.SALAHUDDIN, DO.DO. 4. M.RASHEED, MUKKATHIL VEEDU, PETTAH LANE, PAZHAKUTTY, NEDUMANGADU. 5. M.BHADARUDIN, TC.38/682, COOL BAR AND COFFEE HOUSE, POWER HOUSE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, CHALAKUZHY LANE, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO TRIVANDRUM,-695011, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 2. SABINA, D/O.THE LATE SAFIA BEEVI, THOPPIL HOUSE, KOTTAKKAKATHU CHERI, THEVALLI, KOLLAM. 3. A.M.NOUSHASD, S/O.SAFIA BEEVI, DO.DO. 4. A.M.NAZAR, S/O.LATE SAFIA BEEVI, DO. 5. A.M.NOUFIL, S/O.THE LATE SAFIA BEEVI, DO .DO. 6. A.M.NAJEEM, S/O.THE LATE SAFIA BEEVI, DO .DO. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.30555 of 2008-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The petitioner challenges an order passed in E.P.No.168/2007 in R.C.P.No.98/1984 on the file of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. He seeks to quash the order dated 7.10.2008 on Ext.P23 application. He also seeks for a direction to the Munsiff's Court to reconsider Ext.P23 application on the merits. There is a further prayer to direct the first respondent Tribunal to consider and dispose of Ext.P21 appeal expeditiously. 2. The main relief, thus, is against the order passed on Ext.P23. The petitioner has not produced the said order, but submitted when the matter came up for consideration on an earlier occasion that he has not been issued with the said order. Hence, we directed the Registry to ascertain whether a certified copy is issued and if not, why the delay. 3. Now it is stated by the respondent that the same is issued today. At any rate, even if an order is issued, he has got a right of filing a revision. Therefore, the correctness of that order has to be considered in the revision. WPC 30555/2008 -2- On that short ground, we decline jurisdiction and the writ petition is dismissed. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/