IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2009 / 10TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 1115 of 2003() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/11/2002 IN IA.1455/2002 IN AS.42/1991 of SUB COURT, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- K.P.VEERANKUTTY S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, KANHIRAPALAM HOUSE, PERINTALMANNA AMSOM DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.C.KHALID RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. AALIKKAPARAMBIL SANKARAN'S CHILDRAN THANKAMANI. 2. SUKU. 3. AALIKKAPARAMBIL KRISHNANKUTTY CHETTIYAR'S CHILDREN MANI 4. RAMAN. 5. MANI, S/O AALIKKAPARAMBIL RAMAN CHETTIYAR. 6. KURUVILA, S/O. PUTHAN VEETTIL KURUVILA, PERINTALMANNA AMSOM DESOM. ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN FOR R6 SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH FOR R6 SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR FOR R6 ADV. SRI.RAJESH R. KORMATH THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ C.R.P.Nos.1115, 1265 & 1471/2003 ------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of January, 2009 ORDER Notice which was sent to the first respondent in C.R.P No.1115/2003 was returned with an endorsement 'refused'. I am of the view that notice to the first respondent can be declared as duly served. It is so declared. The parties in C.R.P. No.1115/2003 are the parties in C.R.P. Nos.1265/2003 and 1471/2003. In those C.R.Ps., service of notice is completed on all the respondents. In view of the completion of service in C.R.P. Nos.1265/2003 and 1471/2003, which raises identical grounds and impugns the common order, it is not necessary to insist on service of notice on the respondents separately especially since I find that in those cases also notices to the 1st respondent is returned as refused. 2. On behalf of the counsel for the petitioner, an adjournment is sought for. But, I am not inclined to grant adjournment since I am unable to see any infirmity and much less jurisdictional infirmity justifying invocation of the revisional C.R.P.No. 1115/2003 & OTHERS 2 jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. I also notice that consequent to the dismissal of the interlocutory applications, the appeal itself was dismissed for default and the order dismissing the appeal has attained finality. Even if the petitioner is having any genuine grievance, the petitioner ought to prefer a regular second appeal against the appellate decree. The Civil Revision Petitions will stand dismissed. But this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner filing regular second appeal against the appellate decree in A.S. No.42/1991 and raising all available grounds in the memorandum of second appeal. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE dpk C.R.P.No. 1115/2003 & OTHERS 3 PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE J. ------------------------ C.R.P.Nos.1115, 1265 & 1471/2003 ------------------------ O R D E R 30TH JANUARY 2009