Whether the death of a defendant/respondent to a proceedings will make the judgment passed without knowing the same, a nullity in all cases, is the point for consideration.

2. The Review Petition has been filed by the son of the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition stating that, the judgment passed by this Court on 31.03.2009 suffers from material errors apparent on the face of the records, particularly in view of the fact that the fourth respondent therein, at the time of passing the judgment was not alive and that the death of the said respondent which took place on 08.08.2008 was not brought to the notice of this Court by the Writ Petitioner and hence that the judgment is a nullity.

3. As per the judgment, the impugned order therein (i.e., Ext. P10) was set aside and the concerned respondents were directed to cause the 'Chinese Net' to be shifted to the appropriate place as shown in Ext.P8 Sketch prepared by the departmental authorities pursuant to Ext. P7 judgment passed by this Court. The learned Counsel for the Review

Petitioner submits that, the judgment having been passed after the death of the fourth respondent, cannot have any consequence and that the Review petitioner who is stated as the beneficiary of Ext. P10 order dated 29.12.2006, by virtue of the consent agreement to operate the 'Chinese Net' stated as executed by his deceased father (vide Annexure A1 dated 27.11.2006) is very much entitled to step into the shoes of the deceased and contest the matter. It is also pointed out that the matter has to be adjudicated afresh, after impleading all the legal heirs in the party array.

4. Heard the matter at length, particularly on the legal issue, since nothing has been brought on record in the Review Petition as to the merits of the case involved and further when the learned counsel submitted that the arguments are confined only to the legal issue involved particularly as to the sustainability of the judgment passed by this Court.

5. Before proceeding to the legal issue, it is very much necessary to brush up the sequence of events. The 4th respondent in the Writ Petition was granted Ext.P2 licence to install a 'Chinese Net' in the particular place and location as stipulated therein. The 4th respondent in fact installed the 'Net' elsewhere; which allegedly caused serious loss, hardships and prejudice to the rights and interests of the Writ petitioner, who challenged the same, which led to Ext.P6 issued by the second respondent, whereby the 4th respondent was directed to remove the 'Chinese Net' from where it was installed, to be shifted to the appropriate place as shown in Ext.P2 licence.

6. Aggrieved by Ext.P6, the 4th respondent challenged the same by filing O.P. 36721 of 2003, which led to ext. P7 judgment; whereby this Court arrived at a finding that the Chinese Net could be installed only at the particular place where it was permitted to be installed as per Ext.P2 and accordingly, necessary measurement was ordered to be effected by the concerned authorities and the Director of Fisheries was directed to reconsider the matter on the basis of the proper 'Survey Sketch' to be obtained as aforesaid, of course after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

7. Pursuant to the said verdict, the Taluk Surveyor prepared a detailed 'Sketch' pointing out the exact location where the 'Chinese Net' was to be installed by the 4th respondent (i.e.. the petitioner in Ext.P7 judgment) as permitted in Ext.P2 licence. Though the said

Sketch was made available before the concerned authorities, it was simply given a 'go bye' and the Director of Fisheries passed Ext.P10 order, allegedly in compliance with Ext.P7 judgment, holding that the Chinese Net did not require to be shifted from the existing location. The above order, being very much contrary to Ext.P8 Sketch as well as the clear mandate given by this Court vide Ext.P7 judgment, it was subjected to challenge in W.P.(C) 12044 of 2007 filed by the Writ