IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2011 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1932 CRP.No. 461 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2006 IN IA . 3542 2006 IN OS.368/2001 of ADDL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVASIA, S/O.CHACKO, NEDUMPARA THALAICKAL HOUSE, PERUMPAICKADU VILLAGE, PARAMPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. 2. CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI, NEDUMPARA THALAICKAL HOUSE, -DO-. d. 3. SEBASTIAN, S/O. MATHAI, -DO-,-DO-. 4. JOSEPH, S/O.MATHEW, -DO-,-DO-. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.MATHAI, KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA KARA, PERUMPAICKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. (DIED). ADDL.R2. MARIAMMA, W/O.LATE K.M.JOSEPH, KNJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, PERUMPAICKADU VILLAGE, PARAMPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. “ R3. BABY K. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE K.M.JOSEPH, KANJIRAPPALLIL HOUSE, PERUMPAICKADU VILLAGE, PARAMPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM TALUK. “ R4. ALEYAMMA THOMAS, D/O.LATE K.M.JOSEPH, CHILAMPITTASSERIL, PERUMPAIKKATTUSSERY KARA, PARAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK. “ R5. CHINNAMMA THOMAS, D/O.LATE K.M.JOSEPH, MALELETTU, AMANAKARA P.O., RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, PALA, KOTTAYAM. CRP.No. 461 of 2007() -------------------------------- ADDL. R6. MARYKUTTY BABYCHAN, D/O.LATE K.M.JOSEPH, EDAKKARA, ARAKULAM P.O., ELAPPALLY VILLAGE. “ R7. THANKAMMA ABRAHAM, D/O.LATE K.M. JOSEPH, MUNDIYANICKAL, KARTHIKAPURAM P.O., ALAKKODU VILLAGE. “ R8. KUTTIYAMMA GEORGEKUTTY, D/O.LATE K.M. JOSEPH, PORUNNARAPPALLY, KAVALANKODAM P.O., UZHAVA MURI VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE. “ R9. VALSAMMA MATHEW, S/O.LATE K.M. JOSEPH, KANNAMTHARA HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM P.O., KURICHY, KOTTAYAM. ADDL. R2 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.1.2011 IN IA.968/08 IN CRP 461/07. R2 TO 9 BY ADV. SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ C.R.P.No.461 OF 2007 ------------------------------ Dated this the 21 st day of February, 2011 ORDER The defendants in O.S.No.368 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sub Judge, Kottayam challenge the order passed by the trial court in I.A.No.3542 of 2006, by which the court below held that it is not necessary to refer the case to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 2. The question to be enquired into in this revision is whether on the pleadings, a reference to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is required and whether the order passed by the court below is correct or not. For the reasons mentioned below, I do not think that such an exercise is required in the interests of both parties and also since the suit is of the year 2001. C.R.P.No.461 OF 2007 2 3. It is submitted by the counsel on either side that evidence was taken in the case and arguments were over. The suit was posted for judgment. At that time, an interim order dated 21.1.2001 was passed in this revision (which was filed in the year 2007) staying the pronouncement of the judgment, since both the parties expressed a desire to explore the possibilities of a settlement. Later, it was reported by the counsel that the settlement talks failed. 4. Since the evidence was closed, arguments were over and judgment was reserved, I do not think it is required to dispose of this revision on the merits, particularly when the suit is of the year 2001. At the same time, the interests of both parties can be safeguarded by reserving their respective right to put forward their contentions in the appeal that may arise from the judgment and decree in O.S.No.368 of 2001. In other words, the petitioners would be entitled to contend before the C.R.P.No.461 OF 2007 3 appellate court that a reference to the Land Tribunal was necessary under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, notwithstanding the order in I.A.No.3542 of 2006 and notwithstanding the disposal of this revision otherwise than on the merits. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms