IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 1006 of 2008(M) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.22810/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS /RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:- ---------------------------------- 1. S.M.AVARAN KOYA, AGED 75, S/O K.V. MUHAMMED, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT 12/374, KOYASSAN VEEDU, ELANTE THODUKA, THEKKUMTHALA, CALICUGT 673 001. 2. A.M.USMAN KOYA, AGED 72, S/O S.M.KADIRI KOYA, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT ALI HASSAN MARAKKARAKATH THARAVAD, 14/683, ALI BURHAN, SAFA NAGAR, WEST KALLAI, CALICUT 673 002. 3. A.M.MOHAMMED KOYA, AGED 65, S/O S.M.BASHURUDEEN, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT, SOUHRIDA KUDUMBA VEDHI BLOCK NO.8, THIRUVANNOOR, CALICUT 673 029. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.SRINATH GIRISH SMT.M.LISHA RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & R4 -------------------------- 1. SEETHI MARAKKARAKATH SHAREEFA, AGED 38, D/O KUNHAHAMMAD KOYA, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, NAGARAM AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.540/2008 IN RP. NO.1006/2008 DISMISSED 6.10.2008 SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... R.P.NO. 1006 OF 2008 in WP(C) 22810 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER Respondents in WP(C) 22810 of 2008 filed this petition to review the judgment dated 29.7.2008. As per the said judgment, Ext.P4 and P5 orders passed by Munsiff, Kozhikode were set aside with a direction to pass speaking order. Case of petitioners is that Ext.A1 judgment in CMA 97 of 2007 was suppressed before this court, while filing the writ petition and if Ext.A1 judgment was brought to the notice of this court, Ext.P4 and P5 orders would not have been interfered and so the judgment is to be reviewed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent, petitioner in the writ petition, submitted that the learned counsel was not aware of Ext.A1 judgment, when the writ petition was filed and the writ petitioner had not obtained certified copy of Ext.A1 judgment at that time and therefore she was not aware of the observation in Ext.A1 that the petitioners herein could be impleaded in the suit. 3. Ext.P4 and P5 orders were set aside by this court on the RP 1006/2008 2 ground that reasons are not shown and are not speaking orders. Writ petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.669 of 2007. When an order of injunction was obtained by the first respondent, petitioners filed CMA 97 of 2007 before District Court, Kozhikode, after seeking permission of the court to file an appeal as they were not parties to the suit. Ext.A3 order in I.A.3004 of 2007 was passed by the learned District Judge on 5.12.2007 permitting to file the appeal. WP(C) 36655 of 23007 was thereafter filed by first respondent before this court contending that petitioners have no right to file an appeal as they are not parties to I.A.4615 of 2007, the order challenged in the CMA. The fact that Ext.A3 order was passed on 5.12.2007 was not brought to the notice of this court when Ext.A2 judgment was passed on 12.12.2007. When writ petition 22810 of 2008 was filed, first respondent did not disclose the order passed by District Judge in I.A.3004 of 2007 or the final order passed in CMA 97 of 2007 dated 15.12.2007. Though the appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed, learned District Judge made it clear that petitioners herein could be impleaded in the suit as supplemental defendants and they can take up all legally sustainable contentions in the suit. It is suppressing this fact, writ petition was filed and Ext.P4 and P5 RP 1006/2008 3 orders were got quashed. In view of the suppression of facts, judgment in WP(C) 22810 of 2008 dated 29.7.2008 is reviewed. 4. In view of Ext.A1 judgment, petitioners are entitled to get themselves impleaded in the suit as additional defendants. Therefore though Ext.P4 and P5 orders are not speaking orders, in view of Ext.A1 judgment, there is no necessity to interfere with Ext.P4 and P5 orders. R.P.1006 of 2008 is allowed. WP(C) 22810 of 2008 stands dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-