IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 4 of 2011() ---------------------- (A.F.A. NO.13/1998 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM) ....... PETITIONERS/1ST RESPONDENT/IST RESPONDENT LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. T.V.BABU, THATTANDAVIDA VEEDU, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, POMBINIKKUNNU DESOM, CHERUVANNUR VIA, MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. LEELA K, AGED 58 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE W/O.LATE T.V.BALAN, THATTANDAVIDA VEEDU, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, POMBINIKKUNNU DESOM, CHERUVANNUR VIA, MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SHAMEELA SURENDRAN, 37 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, W/O.SURENDRAN, NJAMANENGADU HOUSE, NJAMANENGADU P.O. KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. 4. BILEESH T.V., AGED 32 YEARS, GOLD APPRAISER, S/O.LATE T.V.BALAN, THATTANDAVIA VEEDU, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, POMBINIKKUNNU DESOM, CHERUVANNUR VIA, MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.S.B.KRISHNA MANI SMT.S.SIBHA RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------------------- C.K.VIJAYAKUMAR, PALOLI VEEDU, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, PAMBIRIKKUNNU DESOM P.O., CHERUVANNUR, VIA MEPPAYYUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Q.Barkath Ali, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.4 of 2011 in A.F.A.No.13 of 1998 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011. Order Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. Read order dated 10.3.2011. Following that order, the office has verified the matter in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 2 thereof. It has been reported that after the demise of Sri.T.A.Ramadasan, Advocate, no other advocate had filed vakalath on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment dated 15th September, 2010 was issued by us without notice to the respondents and the same deserves to be recalled listing the matter for re-hearing. We also record that the second respondent is dead by this time and his legal representatives have to be brought on record. Though the learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff had submitted before us on 10-3-2011 in RP4/11 -: 2 :- this review petition that the decree will not be enforced as against the legal representatives or assets of the second respondent, that was only an attempt to have an expeditious disposal of the R.P. We do not treat it as any concession on law or facts by the counsel on behalf of the respondents affecting the merits of the contentions in the A.F.A. In the result, this R.P.is allowed recalling the judgment dated 15th September, 2010 in A.F.A.No.13/1998. Resultantly, A.F.A.13/1998 will stand restored to file and would be listed appropriately for hearing. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Q.Barkath Ali Judge. Sha/2203