IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.No. 898 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MJC.277/2004 Dated 07/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPLICANT/.APPELLANT ------------------------------------------ K.KUTTY,S/O.KUNCHAPPAN CHETTIYAR, MADAPARAMBIL HOUSE,KANNADI AMSOM AND DESOM, PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. CHINNAMMAL,W/O.LATE SUBRAMANIYAN CHETTIAR,CHEMAMKAD KALAM,KANNADI AMSOM AND DESOM,PALAKKAD TALUK,KANNADI POST,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 701. 2. CHELLAMMA,W/O.MARUTHA POOSARI, KALATHIL VEEDU,PALLASSEENA AMSOM,CHITTUR POST, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 101. 3. RATNAVALLY,W/O.KARUPPUSWAMY, KUZHIYALA,PIRAYIRI AMSOM,PIRAYIRI POST, PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 019. ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ R.P.No.898 OF 2010 in M.J.C. NO.277 OF 2004 IN A.S.106 OF 1997 ------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010 O R D E R Noticed the memo dated 14/10/2010 filed by Sri.T.C.Suresh Menon, who was appearing for the first respondent. The memo is to the effect that the first respondent passed away. 1. It is submitted by Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar that there is no abatement as the first respondent is survived by respondents 2 and 3, who are her children. According to Mr.Nambiar, the first respondent is survived by another legal heir also. Accepting the memo and the submission of Mr.Nambiar, the first respondent is recorded as dead and respondents 2 & 3 are recorded as the legal heirs of the first respondent. The petitioner will implead the other legal heir of the first respondent in case the review petition is allowed and the MJC comes to be considered again. 2. I shall now come to the Review Petition. The review petition seeks review of the order dated 7/9/2010 rejecting R.P.No.898/2010 2 the MJC on the reason that defects noted by the Registry are not cured and on the further reason that there is no representation for the petitioner. One ground, which is raised seriously, is that the name of the counsel, who was appearing for the petitioner, was not shown in the cause list. I am not impressed by the above ground as I find that the order shows the name of the counsel. However, I am inclined to allow the Review Petition. I am inclined to to do so even without notice as it was even before issuing notice in the MJC, that the order sought to be reviewed was passed. The Review Petition is allowed on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.1,000/- to the High Court Legal Service Committee within seven days from today and produces receipt. Once the Registry notices receipt against the payment of the above amount on time, the MJC will be posted on the judicial side. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk R.P.No.898/2010 3 PIUS C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ R.P.No.898 OF 2010 in M.J.C. NO.277 OF 2004 IN A.S.106 OF 1997 - ----------------------- O R D E R 14Tth November,2010.