IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36086 of 2007(U) --------------------------------------- (IA.NO.3465/2002 IN LAR.175/1994 OF III ADDL. SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM) .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. PATHU, D/O.MOIDEEN (LATE), AGED 49 YEARS, ADAMPAYIL HOUSE, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. 2. NABEESA, W/O.BUHARI (LATE), AGED 62 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 3. SUHARA, D/O.BUHARI, (LATE), AGED 45 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 4. SUBAIDA, D/O.BUHARI (LATE), AGED 32 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 5. NABEESA, W/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 63 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 6. ASHARAF, D/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 42 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 7. SALIM, D/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 34 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 8. AZEEZ, D/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 30 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 9. RUGHIA, D/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 40 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 10. SHAMLA, D/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 26 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 11. SAFEENA, D/O.MOHAMMED (LATE), AGED 22 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 12. NABEESA, W/O.BEERAN (LATE), AGED 60 YEARS, -DO- -DO- W.P.(C). NO.36086/2007-U: 13. NAZAR, S/O.BEERAN (LATE) AGED 39 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 14. NAUSHAD, S/O.BEERAN (LATE), AGED 31 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 15. RASHEEDA, D/O.BEERAN (LATE), AGED 35 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 16. THAHIRA, D/O.BEERAN (LATE), AGED 35 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 17. UMAIBA, D/O.BEERAN (LATE), AGED 28 YEARS, -DO- -DO- 18. SALMATH, D/O.BEERAN (LATE), AGED 26 YEARS, -DO- -DO- REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.S.ALIYAR, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.LATE SAIDU MUHAMMED, AADAMPAYIL HOUSE, CHANGAPUZHA NAGAR, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DT. BY ADV. MR.JOSEPH FRANKLIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPT. GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 685 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 030. 3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), NATIONAL HIGHWAY, VYTTILA - ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 019. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36086/2007-U: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 3465/02 DTD. 03/12/2003 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 3464/02 DTD. 03/12/03 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. 3466/02 DTD. 03/12/2003 OF THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE PETITION TO ADJOURN THE LAR.175/94 FROM THE LIST DTD. 30/11/95 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE CLAIMANTS TO RESTORE LAR 175/94 DTD. 15/01/96 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN LAR.175/94 DTD. 01/12/95 OF THE IIRD ADDL. SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36086 OF 2007 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July 2009 ------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs. i) Call for the records in LAR 175/94 and issue a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Sub Court, Ernakulam to consider afresh the reference in the LAR 175/94 on merit. ii) Pass any order or direction deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. Petitioners are the legal heirs of the claimant in LAR 175/94 of the Third Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The reference application was closed W.P.(C).No.36086 OF 2007 2 by the learned Sub Judge in view of the default of the claimant to prosecute the case. That order was passed by the court on 01/12/1995. After death of the claimant, his legal heirs moved an application for restoring that LAR with a petition to condone the delay of more than seven years. The learned Sub Judge after conducting an enquiry, dismissed that application. Ext.P1 is the copy of that order. Impeaching the correctness of that order petitioners have filed this writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader. Perusing Ext.P1 order I find the learned Sub Judge has taken note that after the reference was closed, the petitioner had moved an application more than once for restoration. On both occasions such applications W.P.(C).No.36086 OF 2007 3 had been dismissed for default. It was also noticed that petitioners have not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 2435 days for restoring the case to file. I notice that the order which is sought to be challenged in the writ petition had been rendered by the court on 03/12/2003, but, the writ petition is filed on 04/12/2007. It is also noticed that the petitioners have challenged the order by way of a revision before this court in C.R.P No.1226/2004 and that revision was dismissed by order dated 09/11/2004 concurring with the decision taken in Ext.P1 order. In the writ petition there is no mention of the revision filed and its dismissal. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out a reference to the revision is made in the synopsis, wherein it is stated that the revision was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file proper application. I have called for the file W.P.(C).No.36086 OF 2007 4 relating to C.R.P 1226/2004. I find, the dismissal of the revision was without granting permission to the petitioners to file any fresh petition. Writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv