IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 280 of 2008(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.3579/2008 Dated 30/01/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER (RESPONDENT): ---------------------------------------- GOPALAN JAYACHANDRAN, 'GOKULAM', THALATHOPPU, KARUMKULAM DESOM, KARUMKULAM PAKUTHY. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT: (PETITIONER): --------------------------------- GOPALAN JANARDHANAN, S/O. GOPALAN, "SREEPADAM", KARUMKULAM DESOM, KARUMKULAM PAKUTHY. BY ADV.SHRI R.T.PRADEEP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)No.7143/08 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Rew.P.No.280 of 2008 in W.P.C.No.3579 of 2008 & W.P.(C) No.7143 of 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The review petition No.280/08 is filed to review the order passed by this court whereby this Court directed the Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara to dispose of E.A.No.180/06 in E.P.No.170/05 in O.S.No.550/04. Writ petition No.7143/08 is filed to review Ext.P3 judgment that is the judgment which is sought to be reviewed and for a direction not to dispose of E.A.No.180/06 till the disposal of A.S.No.119/07 pending before the Subordinate Judges Court, Neyyattinkara. 2. This Court passed an order directing the Additional Munsiff to dispose of the E.A. for the reason that the entire materials were not available before this court regarding the history of the litigation. Nobody is to be blamed for the same. But when the real factors are brought before this Court certainly this Court is bound to consider it and in case of necessity to review the order. The crux of the matter is regarding the validity of a Will No.7/00 executed by one Padmajakshi. The writ Rew.P.No.280/2008 & WPC No.7143/08 2 petitioner in W.P.C.No.3579/2008 claims exclusive right over the property of Padmajakshi on the strength of a Will alleged to be executed by her as Will No.7/00. There are six children for the said Padmajakshi and all except one have joined together and had instituted a suit for partition as O.S.No.87/06 wherein the writ petitioner in W.P.C.No.3579/08 has contended regarding the Will. After a full fledged trial the court below found in favour of the writ petitioner and dismissed the suit for partition. Against that judgment and decree an appeal is preferred before the Subordinate Judges Court, Neyyattinkara which is pending as A.S.No.119/07 and is posted on 18.3.2008. 3. So far as the present case is concerned, it was a suit instituted by late Padmajakshi through her power of attorney holder Janardhanan namely, the writ petitioner in W.P.C.No.3579/08 for eviction of the building occupied by the defendant in that case. It has ended in a decree and an execution petition is filed and since the mother died an application E.A.No.180/06 is filed to bring on record Mr.Janardhanan as legal representative and permission to proceed with the execution proceedings on the basis of the Will. Rew.P.No.280/2008 & WPC No.7143/08 3 It is during the pendency of that proceeding the writ petition No.3579/08 was filed seeking for a direction for an early disposal of that application for impleadment and to proceed with the decree in execution. This court ordered for an early disposal. Then comes the application for review as well as the writ petition No.7143/08 contending that the very same issue regarding the validity of the same is the subject matter of the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara in A.S.No.119/07 and therefore requested to this court not to direct the Additional Munsiff to consider the prayer of Mr.Janardhanan at this stage till the disposal of A.S.No.119/07 is made. There is already a litigation between the parties wherein the Will is the subject matter of dispute. Now the matter is pending in appeal. So the genuineness or validity of the Will is pending consideration before an appropriate Civil Forum. Suppose at this stage, again direction is given to another Subordinate court to consider the validity of the Will it may have serious consequences if mutually conflicting findings are ultimately delivered by the two courts. When the matter is pending in appeal and the entire materials including oral and documentary evidence is available before the Subordinate Rew.P.No.280/2008 & WPC No.7143/08 4 Judges Court that court is certainly competent to enter into a finding and also to find out whether any error is committed by the trial court in arriving at a decision upholding the validity of the Will. 4. Therefore, it is only just that a direction is given to the Subordinate Judge, Neyyattinkara to dispose of A.S.No.119/07 pending before it at the earliest as expeditiously and at any rate not later than 31.5.2008. But, I make it clear that the court may try to dispose of the matter before the court closes for the summer holidays in April. Till that time, I direct the Additional Munsiff, Neyyattinkara to keep E.A.No.180/06 pending and if the appeal is dismissed, the court can straight away proceed with the matter and dispose of the execution application in accordance with law at the earliest. The above petitions are disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE csl