IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1261 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.475/2006 Dated 28/08/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS: APPELLANTS: --------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKHARAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, CHENANKARA VEEDU, MEKKATTUMURI, PANMANA VILLAGE. 2. SULOCHANA THANKAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.BHARATHI AMMA, CHENANKARA VEEDU FROM NADUVILA KANNANKARA VEEDU, KOTTACKAKOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: --------------------------------- 1. BHASKARA PILLAI, AGED 46, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, KALLOOTHARAYIL VEEDU, VALIYAKULANGARA MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE FROM NADUVILA KANNANKARA VEEDU, KOTTACKAKOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE. 2. BHARATHI AMMA PADMAJA, AGED 40, W/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, KALLOOTHARAYIL VEEDU, VALIYAKULANGARA MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE FROM NADUVILA KANNANKARA VEEDU, KOTTACKAKOM MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO: 1261 OF 2008 IN R.S.A.No. 475 OF 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th December, 2008. O R D E R This is a review petition filed by the appellants to review the judgment in R.S.A 475/2006. The judgment of this Court passed on 28.8.2008 dismissing the R.S.A is extracted below:- “Counsel for the appellants submits that the first respondent passed away on 12.1.2001, long before passing of the decree by the first appellate court and that therefore, without prejudice to the appellants approaching the first appellate court for appropriate relief, this RSA be closed. The submission is recorded. In the result, I dismiss this RSA.” 2. It is pursuant to the submission of the counsel for the appellants that the first respondent passed away on 12.1.2001 long before passing of the decree by the first appellate court that the appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the appellants approaching the first appellate court for appropriate relief. The present review application has been moved by the appellants contending that the submission so made was a mistake and that infact vide order on I.A 955/2001 additional respondents 4 to 7 R.P.1261/2008 in RSA 475/2006 2 were impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent and that therefore, the RSA has to be taken back to file treating the judgment passed by the first appellate court as valid in law. 3. I have perused Annexure 1 true photostat copy of I.A.955/2001 filed by the appellants in the court below. The application was filed on 19.5.2001. It was called at Bench and on hearing the counsel for the appellants the court passed order impleading additional respondents 4 to 7 as prayed for in I.A.955/2001. The impleadment was so ordered without notice to additional respondents 4 to 7 who were so sought to be impleaded as legal representatives of first respondent. In that event, atleast notice should have been given to them in the appeal after the impleadment. Even that was not done and it is not that by a mistake impleadment of additional respondents 4 to 7 were not carried out in the cause title as counsel for the petitioners submits. On facts of the case it is as good as the legal representatives of the first respondent having not been impleaded as the order on Annexure 1 is passed behind the back of additional respondents 4 to 7 sought to be impleaded and thereafter also they were not let R.P.1261/2008 in RSA 475/2006 3 known that they were impleaded. There is hence no ground to review the judgment passed by this court. In the circumstances this review petition is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN JUDGE jj