IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 592 of 2003(I) ---------------------- IA.1960 /2002 IN AS.108/2002 of I ADDL.DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 5 & 12 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. APPUNNI S/O. KOCHAN, KUNJATHAN HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 2. LAKSHMI, W/O. KUNJATHAN VELAYUDHAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 3. RENUKA, D/O. KUNJATHAN VELAYUDHAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 4. LALITHA, D/O. KUNJATHAN VELAYUDHAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 5. GIRIJA, D/O. KUNJATHAN VELAYUDHAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 6. LATHA, D/O. KUNJATHAN VELAYUDHAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2 AND DEFENDANTS 6 TO11,13 TO 18: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LAKSHMI, D/O. KUNJATHAN KOCHAN AND W/O. MADHAVAN, KANDANCHAKKI HOUSE, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 2. KALIPENNU, D/O. KUNJATHAN KOCHAN AND W/O. APPU, KUTTANPARAMBATH HOUSE, TALIKULAM VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 3. SUDARSANAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KUNJATHAN HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 4. MOHANAN, S/O. CHAKI NARAYANAN, & KALYANI VADANASPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. CRP.No. 592 of 2003(I) 5. KOMALAM, D/O. CHAKI NARAYANAN AND KALYANI, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 6. USHA, D/O. CHAKI NARAYANAN & KALYANI, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 7. SYAMLAL, S/O. CHAKI NARAYANAN & KALYANI, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 8. RAJU, S/O. CHAKI NARAYANAN AND KALYANI, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK 9. AYYAPPAN S/O. KANDAN CHAKI KUNJAYYAPPAN TALIKULAM VILLAGE, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK. 10. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. KANDAN CHAKI KUNJAYYAPPAN, TALIKULAM VILLAGE, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 11. VANITHA, D/O. KANDAN CHAKI KUNJAYYAPPAN, TALIKULAM VILLAGE, THAMPANKADAVU DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 12. PUSHPA, W/O. KOVIL VALAPIL KUTTAN, EDAMUTTAM VILLAGE, CHAMAKALA DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 13. KUMARI, W/O. ITHIKOOT PRAKASAN, VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE-DESOM, CHAVAKAD TALUK 14. RADHIKA, W/O. PANAKAL UNNIRAJAN, PORKULAM VILLAGE, THIRITHIKODE DESOM, TALAPPILLY TALUK. R1, R2, R4 TO R9 & R11 TO R14 BY ADV. MR.RAJIT. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.592 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioners are defendants 1 to 5 and 12 in O.S.No.52/1997 of Munsiff Court, Chavakkad . Respondents are plaintiffs 1, 2 and defendants 6 to 11, 13 to 18. The said suit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein and one Meenakshi who subsequently expired as the third plaintiff seeking a partition of plaint A, B and C schedule properties contending that the said properties belong to one Velappan and that after his death the property devolved on his son Kochan and that on his death in 1977, the property devolved on plaintiffs and defendants. First defendant is the son of Kochan. Defendants 2 to 5 are wife and children of Velayudhan , son of Kochan. The 6th petitioner herein is the daughter of Kochan. Defendants 1 to 6 in the suit contested that the property is ancestral properties inherited by Kochan from his father and the sons of Kochan are entitled to equal shares with that of Kochan. 2. Before the trial court revision petitioners herein were set C.R.P.No.592/2003 Page numbers ex parte. Learned Munsiff passed a preliminary decree in pursuance to which a final decree was also passed. The revision petitioners herein filed A.S.No.108/2002 before the Sub Court, Thrissur challenging the said final decree with a petition to condone the delay of 853 days by filing I.A.No.1960/2002. By the impugned order, the learned Sub Judge dismissed the petition by order dated 31-01-2003. The revision petitioners challenge the said order in this revision. 3. The main contention raised by the respondents is that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Shyam Sunder Sarma v. Pannalal Jaiswal ( 2005(1) KLT 198(SC), only second appeal will lie against the impugned order as the dismissal of the delay condonation petition and the dismissal of the appeal will be treated as a regular appellate decree. In the light of the above decision, this C.R.P. is dismissed as not maintainable. The revision petitioners are permitted to exclude the period of pendency of this CRP for computing the period of limitation, if they choose to file a second appeal against the impugned order. P.Q.BARKATH ALI sv. JUDGE C.R.P.No.592/2003 Page numbers