IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 770 of 2005()
1. AYYAPPAN, S/O.NADUATH KUMARAN, KLARI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PANACHIKKAL VALLI, D/O.PULLIKKATHODI
... Respondent
2. MANATHIL DEVAKI, DO. DO.
3. KOOLIKKALLAKSHMI, DO. DO.
4. AYYAPPAN @ M.C.DASAN, S/O. DO.
5. PULIKKATHODI AMMUKUTTY @ MANI, ALIAS
6. SAROJINI, D/O.PULIKKATHODI BALAN,
7. PADMAVATHY, D/O. DO.
8. BHASKARAN, S/O. DO.
9. SOBHA, D/O.PULIKKATHODI BALAN,
10. PARVATHY @ SHEEBA, D/O. DO.
11. PREMAN, S/O. DO.
12. INDIRA, D/O. DO.
13. BINDU, D/O. DO.
14. ESWARI, D/O.PULIKKATHODI BALAN, DO.
15. MUNDI, D/O.NADUVATH AYYAPPAN,
16. CHINN TEACHER, D/O. DO. KLARI AMSOM
17. PADMAVATHY, D/O. DO.
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Dated :02/03/2010
O R D E R
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.NO.770 OF 2005 ()
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010
O R D E R
The revision is directed against the judgment passed by
the learned Sub Judge, Tirur confirming the order of the
learned Munsiff dismissing an application moved by the
petitioner to set aside the order declaring him ex parte in the
final decree proceedings in O.S.No.210 of 1977 on the file of
the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi. In the revision, steps
remain to be completed against some of the respondents.
Second respondent had expired and the notice issued to the
15th respondent had been returned with endorsement ‘not
known’. However, when the revision was taken up, it has been
brought to my notice that the final decree had already been
passed in the suit and the execution proceedings are now in
progress. In such circumstances, the revision which has been
filed as against the order passed during the pendency of the
final decree proceedings declaring the petitioner ex parte has
CRP.770/05 2
become infructuous. It is not known whether the petitioner
has participated in the final decree proceedings from the
stage from which he was declared ex parte by order of the
court. The final decree passed in the case, it appears, remains
unimpeached and its execution is in progress. I find
concurrent decisions rendered by two inferior courts below
does not, in the circumstance, warrant any interference in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is closed.
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
JUDGE
prp