IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 612 of 2010 -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MJC.37/2010 Dated 02/02/2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN FAO.34/2003 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH JOHN,S/O.LAWRENCE,RESIDING AT CHANYIL HOUSE, VADAKKUMTHODOM LANE, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 11 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LAKSHMI (DIED),W/O.LATE KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT PALLIVATHUKKAL HOUSE, VADAKKUMTHODAM LANE, PALLURUTHY, NORTH MURI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. 2. RUGMINI,D/O.LATE KRISHNAN,DO. DO. 3. MEENAKSHI,D/O.LATE KRISHNAN,DO. DO 4. PADMAVATHY,D/O.LATE NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 5. RUGMINI,D/O.LATE NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 6. RAJAN,S/O.NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 7. GIRIJA,D/O.NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 8. MANI,S/O.NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 9. LALITHA,D/O.NARAYANAN,DO.DO. RP.NO.612 OF 2010 10. SAVITHRI,D/O.NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 11. KUMARI,D/O.NARAYANAN,DO.DO. 12. MEENAKSHI,W/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 13. PARVATHI,D/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 14. CHANDRAN,S/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 15. VALLY,D/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 16. VIJAYAN,S/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 17. INDU,D/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 18. PRAKASAN,S/O.LATE RAMAN DO. DO. 19. BALAN,S/O.MALLU,DO. DO. 20. LAKSHMI,D/O.MALLU,DO. DO. 21. VIJAYAN,S/O.MALLU,DO. DO. 22. CHANDRAVATHY,D/O.MALLU,DO. DO. 23. SAKUNTHALA,D/O.MALLU,DO. DO. 24. REMA,D/O.MALLU,DO. DO. 25. SUNDARI,W/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 26. CHANDRAN,S/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 27. MOHANAN,S/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 28. SURESH,S/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 29. REMESH,S/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 30. SUNIL,S/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 31. SASI,S/O.LATE SREENIVASAN,DO. DO. 32. PUTHI,S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. 33. LEELA,D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. 34. SAROJA,D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. 35. RATNAM,D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. RP.NO.612 OF 2010 36. GOPI,S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. 37. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. 38. USHA,D/O.LATE PADMANABHAN,DO. DO. 39. BALAN,S/O.LATE GOPALAN,DO. DO. 40. VASUDEVAN,S/O.LATE GOPALAN,DO. DO. 41. RAVI,S/O.LATE GOPALAN,DO. DO. 42. REGHU,S/O.LATE GOPALAN,DO. DO. 43. MANI,S/O.LATE GOPALAN,DO. DO. 44. SOBHA,D/O.LATE GOPALAN,DO. DO. 45. ANNA(DIED),W/O.LAWRENCE JOHN, CAHANYIL HOUSE,VADAKKUM THODAM LANE, PALLURUTHY,KOCHI-6. 46. PADMANABHAN,S/O.LATE KRISHNAN,DO. DO. 47. ELEZEBETH,PALAKKAD HOUSE,C.C.XX/2946, PERUMBADAPPU,KOCHI. 48. XAVIER JOHN,DO. DO. 49. MARY JOHN(MATHAMMA),DO. DO. 50. BABY,DO. DO. 51. MOLLY,DO. DO. 52. JENSON,DO. DO. 53. NELSON,DO. DO. 54. VALSALA JACOB,DO. DO. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- R.P.NO. 612 OF 2010 IN M.J.C. NO.37 OF 2010 IN F.A.O..NO. 34 OF 2003 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th, September, 2010. ORDER T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J. This Review Petition is filed against the Order in M.J.C.No.37 of 2010 in FAO. No.34 of 2003 by the second respondent. 2. We heard Shri T.C. Mohandas, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Counsel who represented on behalf of Shri K.S. Madhusoodanan, learned counsel appearing for the parties in the MJC, who submitted that they have already relinquished Vakalath in the Appeal. 3. The MJC was filed by the first respondent herein and 43 others to restore the Appeal which was supported by an Affidavit RP.NO.612 OF 2010 2 by Shri K.S. Madhusoodanan, Advocate. In the C.M.Appl.No.79/2010, the Advocate Clerk had filed the Affidavit. 4. Mainly it is contended by Shri T.C. Mohandas, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner that the order is not a reasoned one and, therefore, it requires interference in the Review Petition. Reliance is also placed on the decisions in Kochuvelu v. Varkey (1968 KLT 462) and Chari Vijayan v. Achuthan Vasu (1973 KLT 849). 5. Before going into the merits of the contentions, we will trace out the history leading to the dismissal of the Appeal. The Appeal was admitted on 2.7.03 and defect was noticed on 16.5.07 and on 8.6.2007 an Order was passed to the effect that unless the defect is cured within a week, the Appeal will stand dismissed. On 18.6.2007 the Appeal was dismissed, noticing that the defect was not cured. 6. C. M. Appl. No. 79/2010 and M.J.C. No. 37/2010 were RP.NO.612 OF 2010 3 allowed on 2.2.2010. 7. Even though Shri T.C. Mohandas, learned Counsel wanted us to review the Order, we are not persuaded for the reason that we do not find any apparent error in the Order. This Court has only set aside the Order dismissing the Appeal for default, and restored the Appeal. Apparently, the Affidavits were submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the Advocate Clerk attached to the learned Counsel. Obviously, the delay was satisfactorily explained as per the averments contained in the Affidavits and accordingly, the Applications were allowed by the Bench. 8. Even though the learned counsel for the review petitioner relied upon the decisions in Kochuvelu v. Varkey (1968 KLT 462) and Chari Vijayan v. Achuthan Vasu (1973 KLT 849), we find that those were cases wherein Ex parte Decrees were passed. It was held that the Courts owe a duty to weigh the merits of the case even when there is non-appearance. The issues raised herein are RP.NO.612 OF 2010 4 not obviously similar. 9. We find no reason to review the Order as no apparent error is evident from the Order passed by this Court. Therefore, the Review Petition is dismissed. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy// PS to Judge