IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 242 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/10/2007 IN IA 451/04 IN FDIA 626/99 IN OS.50/1977 of MUNSIF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST PETITIONER -------------------------------- PULUKKUVAN MAHESWARI, D/O.SARADA, AGED 60 YEARS, NO.4, 5TH MAIN ROAD, 7TH CROSS KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGA NAGAR, EXTENSION, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10 & 12 TO 32 & PETITIONERS 2 TO 4: ---------------------------------------- 1. PULUKKUVAN DAMODARAN, S/O.KALLIYANI, PATTOYAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERI TALUK. 2. PULUKKUVAN NANU, S/O.KALLIYANI, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM. 3. PULUKKUVAN VASU, S/O.KALLIYANI, KUTHUPARAMBA AMSOM, NARAVOOR DESOM. 4. VELANDY JANU, PATTIYAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 5. VELANDY NARAYANI, PATTIYAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 6. VELANDY SANTHA, PATTIYAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 7. PARAYIKKANDY SANKARAN, KANNAVAM AMSOM, IDUMBA. 8. MEKKILERI KRISHNAN, KANNAVAM AMSOM, IDUMBA DESOM. 9. MEKKILERI GOVINDAN, KANNAVAM AMSOM, IDUMBA DESOM. 10. MEKKILERI VASU, KANNAVAM AMSOM, IDUMBA DESOM. 11. KARATU SARADA, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 12. KARATU NARAYANI, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 13. KARATU ROHINI, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 14. KARATU KUNHIRAMAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 15. KARATU SREEDHARAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 16. KARATU DINESHAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 17. POTHANDY SANKARAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 18. POTHANDY KUMARAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 19. POTHANDY KALLIYANI, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 20. POTHANDY BALAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 21. POTHANDY SREEDHARAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 22. POTHANDY DEVI, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 23. POTHANDY VIJAYAN, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 24. POTHANDY VALSON, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 25. POTHANDY SARADA, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 26. POTHANDY MANOJ, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 27. POTHANDY DEEPESH, MANATHANA AMSOM, PERAVOOR DESOM. 28. NALPADY LAKSHMI, AGED 62 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOLANKUNIYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. ERUVATTY. 29. NALPADY BABU, AGED 49 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOLANKUNIYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ERUVATTY. 30. NALPADY SASI, AGED 47 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOLANKUNIYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ERUVATTY. 31. NALPADY MINI, AGED 32 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOLANKUNIYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ERUVATTY. 32. NANDYATH KANAKARAJ, S/O.- AGED 30 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOLANKUNIYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ERUVATTY. 33. NANDYATH VIJAYARAJ, S/O.NANU, AGED 28 YEARS, COOLIE, KOLANKUNIYIL VEEDU, ERUVATTY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ERUVATTY. 34. NANDYATH SHIJIN, S/O.NANU, AGED 20 YEARS, COOLIE, PALLERI HOUSE, KUNITHALA, P.O.PERAVOOR. 35. NANDYATH SHYAMA, D/O.NANU, AGED 28 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, KOYYATHI HOUSE, EERAYILOLLI, NEDUMPOYIL, PERAVOOR. 36. V.N.KUMUTHAN, S/O.SARADA, PATTIYAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERI TALUK. 37. PULUKKUVAN SHAJI, S/O.MAHESWARI, PATTIYAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERI TALUK. 38. PULUKKAVAN SHYNESH, S/O.MAHESWARI, PATTIYAM AMSOM, POOKODE DESOM, THALASSERI TALUK. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. N. Krishnan, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P.No. 242 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba in I.A.Nos.450 and 451 of 2004 in FDIA No.626/99 in O.S.No.50/1977. The above applications were filed by the defendants 4 to 7 to condone the delay in filing the cost list and to extend the time for receiving the cost list and to amend the final decree. 2. There was a direction to pay an amount of Rs.35,445/- towards stamp value for engrossing final decree. The contention of the petitioners was that they are only liable to pay in proportion to their share and as there was default by others in order to get the final decree engrossed, they had paid the amount and therefore they wanted to receive the cost list including this amount after condoning the delay. The court below dismissed the application on the ground of non-impleadment, in ordinate delay, etc. I feel that the approach made by the court below will only defeat the ends of substantial justice. When properties are set apart in a partition decree and final decree is to be incorporated. then necessarily the parties are bound to pay or deposit the amount towards stamp paper in proportionate to their CRP 242/08 -2- share. When one party fails to do and other parties had paid it for the purpose of getting final decree engrossed on stamp paper, the court has to consider it liberally. 3. Therefore, I set side the order of the court below and direct the court below to consider the matter afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The revision petitioner is directed to implead the necessary parties, so as to have an effective adjudication of the matter. The revision petition is disposed of, accordingly. M.N.Krishnan, Judge. mn.