IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 231 of 2004(Y) in W.P(C) No.3813 of 2004 ------------------------------------ REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------- 1. RASHEEDA BEEVI, SHEEJA MANZIL, VALIAKODE, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM. 2. N.SUBAIDA, SHEEJA MANZIL, VALIAKODE, NEDUMANGADU, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT/ PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- PADMA NAGAR ASSOCIATION, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LEKSHMI NAIR, PLOT NO.31, PADMA NAGAR HOUSING COLONY, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER (SR.) SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2009, ALONG WITH FAO NO. 155 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP.No. 231 of 2004(Y) in W.P(C) No.3813 of 2004 I.A. NO. 4109/2004 IN RP.No. 231 of 2004 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE 16.1.2009 // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE rhs M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P.No. 231 OF 2004 IN W.P(C) 3813 OF 2004 & F.A.O.No. 155 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2009 O R D E R R.P. No. 231/2004 is filed to review the judgment of this court dated 3.2.2004 wherein this Court directed the appellate court to dispose of I.A. 292/98, I.A. 1366/98, I.A. 2259/2000 and I.A. 2413/2000 as expeditiously as possible before the hearing of the appeal and to dispose of the appeal within a period of three months. So there was a specific direction given by this court to consider the applications filed by the appellant prior to the disposal of the appeal. Strictly speaking it may not be in accordance to law for the reason that the settled position is that such applications have to be considered along with the appeal and in case of necessity to pass appropriate orders in the final judgment. I could have reviewed it but the whole problem arises because much water was flown thereafter. 2. As per the directions of this court, the appellate court considered these applications and allowed it and on the basis of the same had remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal. So putting that whole thing in the reverse manner may cause R.P.No. 231 OF 2004 IN W.P(C) 3813/04 & F.A.O.No. 155 OF 2004 -2- difficulty to the parties as well as to this court. Therefore after hearing both sides, I feel the following can be done so as to ventilate the grievances of the parties. I.A. 292/98 is an application for issuance of a Commission for local investigation to note and file a report and plan and it has been allowed. The Commissioner be directed to note the particulars required by the defendants and they be permitted to file work memo. I.A. 2259/2000 is for production of documents. It is true that those documents have been received. Reception of a document and admissibility of the document are two different factors and if there is any legal issue regarding the admissibility or relevancy of the document, that may be permitted to be raised by the defendants at the stage of trial. I.A. 1366/98 is an amendment application. It has been allowed and the defendant can certainly can plead the correctness by filing an additional written statement for which sufficient opportunity be given. Lastly I.A. 2413/2000 regarding impleadment of additional parties. The appellate court found that impleadment of Kerala State Housing Board was necessary even for the appeal. Therefore when it is so, it has become a necessary party in the suit itself and if it is to be challenged, it can also be done in the form of additional written R.P.No. 231 OF 2004 IN W.P(C) 3813/04 & F.A.O.No. 155 OF 2004 -3- statement as mis jointer of parties. There is another I.A. 229/04 which is filed to amend the schedule of the plaint. There also the objection can be raised in the form of additional written statement and sufficient opportunities be given. 3. It is seen that the defendants in the suit have filed four applications I.A. 701/98 in A.S. 201/97, I.A. 194/2001 in A.S. 201/97, I.A. 2570/2000 in A.S. 201/97, and I.A. 2576/2003 in A.S. 201/97. All these applications are filed to receive documents under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code. Unfortunately the appellate court did not pass any orders in these applications. Therefore it has become necessary for this court to direct the II Additional District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram to send these four applications also to the trial court so that the admissibility, relevancy and reception can be considered by the trial court after hearing the all concerned. The order of remand does not call for interference. But the above matters also be noted. Thus the Review Petition as well as the F.A.O are disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm