IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 CRP.No. 145 of 2004() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2003 IN IA. 4130 /2003 IN OS.1982/1993 of I ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT.,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SIVANANDAN, AGED 57, S/O. DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT KATTUVILA VEEDU, MARACKALKUNNU, EAST PATTOM P.O., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASOKAN, AGED 49, S/O. DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT KATTUVILA VEEDU, MARACKALKUNNU, EAST PATTOM P.O., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. CHANDRAN, AGED 43, S/O. DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT KATTUVILA VEEDU, MARACKALKUNNU, EAST PATTOM P.O., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. VALSALA, AGED 52, D/O. SUBHADRA, RESIDING AT SREEKALA EATTON WORKS, KRISHNANCOIL, NAGARCOIL. 5. SOBHANA, AGED 46, D/O. SUBHADRA, RESIDING AT MUDUMBIL VEEDU, MADHAVAPURAM VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.VASAVAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOMATHY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, D/O. KUNJI, JAYACHANDRA VILASOM, LAKSHMI NAGAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 53, S/O. PARAMESWARAN, JAYACHANDRA VILASOM, LAKSHMI NAGAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. CRP 145/2004 2 3. INDIRA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O. SURENDRAN, JAYACHANDRA VILASOM, LAKSHMI NAGAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAMANI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O. GOMATHY, JAYACHANDRA VILASOM, LAKSHMI NAGAR, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DEVAKI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, DAUGHER OF KUNJI, ERAVIANVILAKATHU VEEDU, KURIYATHI, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. SAHADEVAN, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, SON OF KESAVAN, NOW RESIDING AT THODUVARAPIL VEEDU EAST PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. AMBUJAKSHI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KUNJI, KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU, BEHIND L.I.C. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. KAMALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KUNJI, RESIDING AT MANIKANDA VILASOM, MARACKAL KUNNU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. LEELA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KUNJI,RESIDING AT KANNIYAN PUTHEN VEEDU PARASSALA VILLAGE, PARASSALA. 10. SUSEELA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF KUNJI, PANAYIL VEEDU, JYOTHI NAGAR, KESAVADASAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 11. VIJAYAN, AGED 54 YEARS, SON OF DAMODARAN, RESIDING AT KATTUVILA VEEDU, MARACKAL KUNNU, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.145of 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is preferred against the dismissal of O.S.No.1982/1993 by the I Additional Munsiff, Trivandrum. 2. The Munsiff has dismissed the suit for non production of the documents. An application under Order IX Rule 9 was filed, which was dismissed holding that it is not a dismissal under Order IX Rule 8 CPC and therefore, an application under Order IX Rule 9 will not lie. It is not seriously challenged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Now the learned counsel for the revision petitioner would argue before me challenging the judgment of the court below whereby the suit is dismissed. When a judgment and decree of a Munsiff Court is challenged, the Civil Procedure Code prescribes the forum to file an appeal. Such a Forum is only an Appellate forum and not a Revisional Forum. Therefore, the appropriate remedy even by accepting the contention of the revision petitioner is to prefer an appeal against the said judgment. Since a revision is filed, this CRP 145/04 2 cannot be entertained and further, if an appeal is to be preferred, it will not lie before this Court. Therefore, I dismiss the revision petition. But, I make it clear that if the revision petitioner wants redressal of his grievance in appropriate Forum and moves in that direction, the delay occasioned in filing the appeal may be sympathetically considered for the reason the proceedings were prosecuted in a wrong forum. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl