IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 CRP.No. 197 of 2006() -------------------------- OPELE.118/2003 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.KUNHIRAMAN, S/O.AMBU, AGED 78 YEARS, MADHURIMA HOUSE, ERIPURAM AMSOM, ERIPURAM CHENGAL DESOM, PAYANGADI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.V.KALLIYANI, MADHURIMA HOUSE, ERIPURAM AMSOM, ERIPURAM CHENGAL DESOM, PAYANGADI.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, K.S.E.B., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC FOR KSEB THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs M.N. KRISHNAN,J. ........................................... C.R.P.NO.197 OF 2006 ............................................. Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. O R D E R This revision is preferred against the order of the Additional District Judge, Thalassery in OP(El).No.118/2003. The petition filed for additional compensation has been dismissed by the court below and it is against that decision the revision is preferred. 2. A perusal of paras 4 and 5 of the Memorandum of Revision would reveal that the revision petitioners have moved an application for remitting the Commissioner's report for the reason that the previous inspection was done during the rainy season where the land was fully covered with water. But it was dismissed. Similarly when the matter was posted for evidence, adjournment was sought for as the revision petitioners were suffering from ailment. It was also dismissed. Later when the mater was taken up for award, a petition for reopening the case and for evidence and to receive additional documents were also dismissed by the learned Judge and thereafter proceeded to dispose of the matter on the basis of : 2 : C.R.P.NO.197 OF 2006 the materials available. The matter was referred to Lok Adalath conducted by the High Court Legal Services Committee wherein the counsel appearing for both sides agreed that the entire matter forming subject matter of the revision petitioners requires a second look and therefore they agreed that the matter could be remitted to the trial court for consideration of the whole issue with permission to let in evidence. So with such endorsement, the matter has come back from the Adalath. From the materials available, it can be seen that the revision petitioners who wanted the particulars were not provided with opportunity. Therefore taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to remand the case by setting aside the order passed by the court. 3. In the result, the CRP is allowed and the order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for fresh consideration of the entire matter afresh after permitting both sides to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in : 3 : C.R.P.NO.197 OF 2006 accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the lower court on 28.2.2011. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : C.R.P.NO.197 OF 2006 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A/A.S/C.R.P.NO.OF ............................................. 17th January, 2011. J U D G M E N T/O R D E R