IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 544 of 2008(C) ------------------------------- (THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.12835/2008) .................... REVISION PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------- THANKAMANI.P.O., D/O.ANANDAN NAIR, KELOTH PADINJAREVEETTIL, KOTTOOR DESOM, P.O.SREEKANDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RADHAMANI.P.O., D/O.ANANDAN NAIR, PAPPINISSERI OLATH VEETTIL, SREEKANDAPURAM, KOTTOOR DESOM, P.O.SREEKANDAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, K.S.E.B., SREEKANDAPURAM, P.O.SREEKANDAPURAM. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN, R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU, R2 & R4 SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.544/2008 in WP(C).12835/2008-C = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of May, 2008. O R D E R 1.This review petition is filed by the fourth respondent in WP(C).12835/2008. She and the writ petitioner are sisters. They are parties to a partition suit pending before the Munsiff’s Court, Taliparamba. It appears that there is a building in the common property. The said building is numbered by the Sreekandapuram Grama Panchayat as SP XII 321A. The writ petitioner applied for grant of electricity supply to that building on the basis of possession certificate and moved this Court alleging non-consideration of that application. Having regard to the nature of the Electricity Laws, the Telegraphs Act and the other attendant provisions of law that governs the situation, directions were issued as RP544/2008 -: 2 :- per judgment dated 11-4-2008 requiring the Electricity Board authorities to take action in accordance with law. Notice to the fourth respondent therein, namely, the review petitioner, was dispensed with because, the directions issued as per that judgment would not, in any manner, affect the right of the review petitioner to raise objections to the drawal of the line. This is because, in terms of the Electricity Act, if there is obstruction to the drawal of the line, the Electricity authority has to move the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate, as the case may be, and apply for removal of obstruction and in such event, the review petitioner (fourth respondent in the writ petition) would be entitled to an opportunity of being heard. 2.Be that as it may, this review petition is filed alleging that the assertion in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is residing in that building for the last so many years is a wrong RP544/2008 -: 3 :- statement and that the judgment is likely to be misunderstood by the Board authorities and there may be forcible drawal of the line without abiding by the Rules. It is also pointed out that Ext.P2 on the strength of which the possession of the writ petitioner was sought to be proved, could not be acted upon since even in the written statement before the civil court (Annexure-5 along with the review petition), the writ petitioner is shown to have taken the stand that she was only constructing the building in question even in 2005. 3.Ext.P2 is only an ownership certificate issued showing the writ petitioner as the owner of the building situated therein, according to the assessment register for the years 1997-98 to 2006-07. While it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the addition of the letter ‘A’ along with the number of the house shows that the building could be a new construction, Ext.P2 cannot be taken to be RP544/2008 -: 4 :- issued to evidence that the building was constructed in 1997-98. I say so because, all that the said certificate shows is that the writ petitioner is shown to be the owner of that building in a register which pertains to 1997- 2007. That is for two quinquennials. All that it refers is to the period for which the register is maintained. It does not, by itself, evidence the date of construction. I make this clarification because, the judgment sought to be reviewed is never intended to affect, in any manner, the rival contentions of the parties before the civil Court. It has also to be remembered that the Electricity Board has necessarily to take action for removal of obstruction in terms of the Electricity Act, having regard to the stand of the review petitioner. 4.Having heard learned counsel for parties, it also needs to be clarified that even the drawal of line, if at all permitted, shall also be subject to the result of the civil suit between the RP544/2008 -: 5 :- parties and this judgment will not stand in the way of the civil court deciding the equities and other matters in the partition suit. The aforesaid clarifications will satisfy the purpose of the review petitioner. 5.Before parting with this case, it needs to be noticed that the writ petitioner appears to have, even in his written statement, taken the stand that the properties are common. The review petitioner and the writ petitioner are sisters. It is stated by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that his client was away in Tamil Nadu for quite some time and that what was there in the common property is the old family house. Family ties are not built in concrete and rubble. This is a fit case where the parties, through the aid and advice of their wise counsel, negotiate and settle the suit and end up amicably so that they could enjoy the love and affection they had under the guiding lights of their parents when they lived in the old family house. RP544/2008 -: 6 :- The learned Munsiff will, therefore, make an endeavour to ascertain whether the partition suit between the parties could be considered for amicable settlement at the earliest. I call upon the parties also to reasonably co-operative and end a litigation. With the aforesaid clarifications, this review petition is closed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/020608