IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 489 of 2008(Y)
1. POOLAKKAL SUBRAMANIAN, S/O LATE THAMI,
... Petitioner
2. POOLAKKAL SAROJINI, D/O LATE THAMI
3. POOLAKKAL VASANTHA, D/O LATE THAMI,
4. POOLAKKAL SARASWATHI, D/O LATE THAMI,
5. POOLAKKAL SUMA, D/O LATE THAMI,
6. POOLAKKAL SUDHAKARAN, S/O LATE THAMI,
7. KALI, W/O LATE POOLAKKAL THAMI,
Vs
1. K.CHANDRIKA, W/O MANCHERI, VELUTHEDATH,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNANNUNNI(SR.ADVOCATE)
For Respondent :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
K.P. Balachandran, J.
--------------------------
C.R.P.No.489 of 2008
--------------------------
ORDER
This revision petition is filed by the
petitioners, who are the defendants in O.S.No.
265/99 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Tirur.
The suit is stated to be one for eviction of the
petitioners from their residential house. The suit
was decreed ex parte on 21.8.2006. Petitioners
filed I.A.No.1765/06 before the trial court to get
the ex parte decree set aside and the said
application was dismissed by the trial court vide
order dated 6.3.2007. Against the said order,
petitioners filed C.M.A.No.14/07 before the Sub
Court, Tirur and that was dismissed vide judgment
dated 31.5.2008. It is assailing the order of the
trial court on I.A.No.1765/06 in O.S.No.265/99 and
the judgment of the first appellate court in C.M.A.
No.14/07 that this revision is filed.
2. Counsel for the respondent also entered
appearance and submissions of both the counsel were
CRP 489/08 2
heard.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that
against the rejection of kukikidappu application
filed by them, A.A.No.224/00 was filed before the
Land Reforms Appellate Authority, Thrissur and that
was dismissed on 13.3.2006 and against that order,
a revision was filed before this Court on 26.5.2006
with c.f.No.3583, but that the said file is missing
in this Court and that therefore, petitioners could
not get any relief from that revision. In view of
the said submission, the office was directed to
verify and report whether any revision had been
filed as is submitted. Office has reported that
revision in fact was filed on 26.5.2006 against the
order in A.A.No.224/00 with filing No.3583, but the
same was returned as defective on 11.10.2006, vide
Defect No.10550/06 of defect register and that on
verification of the re-presentation register and
defect register, the same is not seen re-presented
thereafter. Hence, the grievance that tenancy right
CRP 489/08 3
claimed independently by filing application before
the Land Tribunal could not be taken up to this
Court, when it was concurrently dismissed by the
Land Tribunal as also by the appellate authority is
not a grievance that can be countenanced and the
petitioners have to blame themselves.
4. As regards the claim of the petitioners to
have the ex parte decree set aside also, I do not
see much merit. The suit is one of the year 1999.
The court below has observed that it was on account
of non co-operation of the petitioners that the
dismissal of the suit could not be had on merits.
When the suit was listed in 2002, they remained ex
parte. Then also, petition to set aside the ex
parte decree was filed and that was allowed.
Again, when the suit was listed in the year 2006,
the petitioners remained absent and ex parte and
the suit was again decreed ex parte. The court
below has further observed that the petitioners
were claiming kudikidappu right over the property
CRP 489/08 4
involved in the suit and their prayer for issuance
of purchase certificate was dismissed by the Land
Tribunal and the said dismissal was upheld by the
appellate authority as well. It is the said
decision of the appellate authority that was
attempted to be assailed before this Court by
filing a revision. But the revision was defective
and despite return of the same for curing the
defects, they have not re-presented the revision.
When the claim of the petitioners, who were the
defendants in the suit, which was decreed ex parte,
was that they are entitled to kudikidappu right and
are entitled to purchase the same and it is found
that the said right independently agitated before
the appropriate forum and the appellate authority
were dismissed and it is not prosecuted further,
there is no merit in the contentions of the
petitioners and the very same contentions cannot
also be agitated afresh in the suit. It is probably
for that reason that they have abstained from
CRP 489/08 5
contest and are filing petitions to set aside the
ex parte decree when once the decree is passed ex
parte. The evidence adduced on the side of the
petitioners have been discussed threadbare by the
trial court in the order dismissing the petition to
set aside the ex parte decree. The courts below
have concurrently considered the matter and found
that the petition to set aside the ex parte decree
is ill conceived and is devoid of any merit. There
is no reason for this Court to take a different
view on the facts and circumstances emerging from
the records available.
In the result, I dismiss this CRP.
17th November, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv