IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1179 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.2/2003 Dated 13/10/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ C.K.MOHAMMED MOULAVI, S/O. LATE ABDULLA, AGED 38 YEARS, ALANALLOOR POST, PANDIKKAD (VIA), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. K.MUHAMMED, MANAGER, M.M.L.P.SCHOOL, VADAKKUPARAMBA, PANDALLUR AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. USMAN, S/O. OTTAKATH MAMMADKUTTY, PANDALLUR AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DIED) 3. AHAMMED, S/O. KALPAKAPARAMBA MOIDEEN, PANDALLUR AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. UMMER HAJI, S/O. MAMMADKUTTY, PANDALLUR AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A. NO. 2887 OF 2009 IN R.P. NO. 1179 OF 2009 CLOSED SD/- HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE 9.12.2009 HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ---------------------------------------- R.P.No. 1179 of 2009 in S.A. No. 2 of 2003 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for the review petitioner and the respondents. 2. After hearing the counsel on both sides at length this Court by judgment dated 13.10.2009, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court and restored the judgment and decree passed by the trial court . The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 243/1990 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Manjeri who are also the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 436/1990 on the file of the same court are the followers of one group and the defendants in the same suit are the followers of the rival group. The decision rendered by the learned Munsiff in O.S No. 436/1990 was discussed in detail and this Court was made to understand that the judgment and decree passed in that suit have attained finality. The counsel on both sides have also given to this Court such an impression 3. Now the additional 4th respondent in the appeal, has filed this review petition seeking to review the judgment dated 13.10.2009 for the reason that this Court has proceeded on the assumption that the decree and judgment in O.S No. 436/1996 have become final as far as the parties to the second appeal are concerned. In the review petition it is stated that the judgment and decree in O.S. No.436/1996 have not R.P.No. 1179 of 2009 in S.A. No. 2 of 2003 -2- become final and that A.S. No. 47/1997 has been filed against the judgment and decree in O.S No. 436/1990 is pending before the Additional District Court, Manjeri. 4. I have gone through the averments in the review petition. This Court in detail discussed the evidence entered by the civil court in O.S. No. 436/1990, the declaration and other reliefs granted by the said court This Court passed the judgment on the assumption that the findings in O.S. No. 436/1990, have attained finality. Since the 1st appeal is pending before the lower appellate court the judgment under review requires reconsideration. In the circumstances the review petition is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by this Court in S.A. No. 2/2003 is reviewed. Since the second appeal has to be heard elaborately, I think it is appropriate for this Court to re-hear the matter. Treat the second appeal as part heard. There will be a direction to the Additional District Court, Manjeri to hear and dispose of A.S. No. 47/1997 within a period of 3 months from today. Post the second appeal after 4 months. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) es HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------- R.P.No. 1179 of 2009 in S.A. No. 2 of 2003 ---------------------------- ORDER 9th December, 2009