1. In both the revision and the writ petition, which emanate from two different proceedings, subject matter involved and also the questions emerging for consideration are the same. The revision is filed by some of the respondents in A.A.No.90/05 on the file of the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms) Alappuzha, challenging the judgment dated 1.9.2006 of that authority setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal, Palluruthy assigning the right, title and interest over a property in favour of the 1st respondent in the appeal. The writ petition is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1581/05 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, who are legal representatives of the above said 1st respondent in the appeal before the appellate authority, challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the learned Munsiff referring the question of tenancy raised by some of the defendants(defendants 13 to 19) in the suit to the LandTribunal for determination.

2. Subject matter covered by the appeal before the appellate authority and also the suit, O.S.No.1581/05 before the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam are one and the same viz., 1.22 acres of land in Survey No.87/5B of Edappally North Village.

3. Short facts necessary for disposal of both the above cases can be summed up thus: The Land Tribunal, Palluruthy, on an application under J-Form, viz., O.A.No.3024 of 1970 moved by the land owner and the tenant-(first respondent in A.A.No.90/05), after enquiry, assigned the title, right and interest over 1.22 acres of land in Survey No.87/5B of Edappally North Village, in favour of the tenant recognising his status as a cultivating tenant over that property. That order was challenged 34 years after the issue of the purchase certificate by a third party, the first respondent in the revision, who claimed of obtaining jenmom right and possession under a registered sale deed in 2005 from the jenmi of the land. The appeal was preferred impeaching the purchase certificate issued to the first respondent by the Land Tribunal impleading that respondent alone in the party array. The first respondent had already passed way, admittedly, even before the presentation of the appeal. Though an application for condonation of delay was moved by the appellant it was not considered, and no enquiry thereof was conducted. However, later, the legal representatives of the first respondent (the revision petitioners), some members of the jenmi family including the landowner - executant of the sale deed in favour of the appellant, and also some others who also claimed interest over the property canvassing rival tenancy rights were brought in the appeal as additional respondents. The appellate authority, after hearing both sides, allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the Land Tribunal granting purchase certificate in favour of the first respondent with a direction to that Tribunal to consider and dispose another proceeding relating to the subject matter, S.M.P.No.172/02, which was initiated by some of the respondents, claiming interest over the land as cultivating tenants seeking assignment of the right, title and interest over the property in their favour. Propriety and correctness of that decision is challenged in the revision.

4. The judgment of the appellate authority is assailed in revision by the legal representatives of the first respondent in the appeal, who had been impleaded as additional respondents 2 to 9 in the appeal.

5. The writ petition emerges from an order passed by the learned Munsiff, Ernakulam in O.S.No.1581/05 directing a reference to the Land Tribunal, Palluruthy to determine the claim of tenancy canvassed by some of the defendants in the suit. The above suit had been instituted by the revision petitioners as plaintiffs. They are the wife and children of the tenant viz., late Vareed Jacob, in whose favour the Land Tribunal had previously issued purchase certificate over the subject matter recognizing his status as a cultivating tenant. Suit was one