IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1033 of 2009(R)
1. THOMAS SKARIA,S/O.C.T.SKARIA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR,(REVENUE RECOVERY),
3. KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
4. BABU BARADWAJ,S/O.VIJAYARAGHAVAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAJU BABU
For Respondent :SRI.DEEPU THANKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
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