IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2009 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1033 of 2009(R) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27667/2003 Dated 20/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- THOMAS SKARIA,S/O.C.T.SKARIA, CHITTEZHATHIL HOUSE,KAKKOOR P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,(REVENUE RECOVERY), KOZHIKODE. 3. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KESTON ROAD,KAVADIYAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 4. BABU BARADWAJ,S/O.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 54 YEARS,MATHILAKATH HOUSE, MARTHUR DESOM,VENGERI VILLAGE,KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN FOR R4 ADV. MR. PATHROSE MATHAI FOR R3 ADV. MR. SAJI VARGHES FOR KSFDC GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- RP No. 1033 of 2009 IN WP(C) NO. 27667 OF 2003 ------------------------------------ Dated, this the 28th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The Writ Petition filed by the Review Petitioner was dismissed on 20th July, 2009, mainly observing that the additional 4th respondent was very much a necessary party and that despite ordering notice to him on 19.09.2003, the service was not completed for the reason that no 'process charges' were paid by the Writ Petitioner despite the many a chance given to cure the defect; however after hearing the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner on the merits as well. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the 4th respondent has already approached this Court by filing WP (C) 24763/2003 and that the said matter is still pending as specifically pointed out in paragraph 6 of the Writ Petition. It is conceded that there was an omission on the part of the learned counsel to point out this fact before this Court, when the matter was finalised on 20th July, 2009. But the factual position in this regard is not seriously disputed by the respondents as well. 3. On going through the proceedings, it is seen that there was an order passed by this Court on 12.12.2007 to post WP(C)27667/2003 RP No.1033/2009 in WP(C) No. 27667 of 2003 2 along with WP(C) 24763/2003; despite which the present Writ Petition alone was posted on the relevant date, leading to the impugned verdict. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the property in question was purchased by the review petitioner from the additional 4th respondent in this Writ Petition, who is the petitioner in the connected case and that, if the case put forth by the latter is held as correct and sustainable, the dismissal of the present Writ Petition will lead to much adverse circumstances. 4. Considering the particular facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the above Writ Petition also be heard and decided on merits afresh, along with WP(C) 24763/2003. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 20.07.2009 in WP(C) No. 27667/2003 is recalled. WP(C) 27667/2003 is restored to the file, to be heard along with the connected case. Post both the cases in the appropriate Court. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc