IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2009 / 20TH ASWINA 1931 FAO.No. 165 of 2009 ------------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDERS IN I.A.NOS.2646/08 & 2647/08 IN LAR.42/2002 of ADDL.SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT ------------------------------------------------------------- PONNUCHAMI,S/O.LATE KUNCHAN, KOTTILPARA, ELIPARA , ELAPPULLY, KOZHIPARA POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT AND REVIEW PETITIONER/ 1ST RESPONDENT & CLAIMANT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, KINFRA, PALAKKAD. 2. SATHYABHAMA W/O.LATE KRISHNAN KOTTILPARA, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DIST. NOW RESIDING AT ENNAPADAM, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- F.A.O.NO. 165 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th October, 2009 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. This Appeal is filed against the order passed in I.A.Nos.2646/08 and 2647/08 in L.A.R.No.42 of 2002. These are Applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC respectively. The Applications have been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would essentially draw our attention to paragraph 11 of the order and he would submit that there is no basis for the court below to have made the observation about the appellant having suppressed any real facts by misleading the court. We are not inclined to interfere with the order allowing the Applications. Apparently, the Applications are allowed and we feel that it would only advance the cause of substantial justice, so that there will be a decision F.A.O.NO.165/09 2 after considering the merits of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant would point out that it is actually the duty of the court below to ensure service of notice on the respondents and the appellant as such has no role in these matters. He entertains an apprehension that when the matter goes for trial and decision, the appellant may not get justice. We see no basis for this apprehension and we are certain that the court below will consider and take a decision going by the evidence and the law on the point. Subject to the above observations, the Appeal is dismissed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge