IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the power of review under the CPC cannot be exercised by a trial court suo motu after a significant delay without an application from an aggrieved party.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 564 of 1997. The 2nd plaintiff, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner and mother of petitioners 2 to 6, died during the pendency of the suit.

2. O.S. No. 564 of 1997 on the files of Munsiff’s Court, Hosdurg was a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from trespassing into the plaint B schedule and C schedule properties. The suit was instituted based on a purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal (II), Kanhangad in SM No. 1084 of 1976 in respect of 4 Acres of land. The plaintiffs also prayed for a declaration of title based on the purchase certificate. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed as I.A. No. 2298 of 2000 for staying the suit in view of the pendency of appeal before the appellate authority as A.A. No. 2 of 1999 and the Munsiff’s Court stayed the suit till disposal of the appeal as per Ext.P3 order dated 23.3.2001. In the meanwhile, the appellate authority allowed A.A.N o. 2 of 1999 and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioners again filed I.A. No. 2336 of 2002 under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to refer the question of tenancy to the Land Tribunal in view of the order of the Appellate Authority in remanding the matter back to the Tribunal. The Munsiff's Court, by Ext.P4 order dated 30.01.2003, had stayed the trial of the suit finding that the question of tenancy would have to be decided in terms of Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. This was more so when, the question of the validity of the purchase certificate was gaining attention of the appellate authority under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Consequent on remand, the Land Tribunal cancelled the purchase certificate issued to the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff. Aggrieved by the order cancelling the purchase certificate in favour of the 1st petitioner/1st plaintiff, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, Kannur as A.A. No. 100 of 2011 which is still pending consideration. When the presiding officer of the trial court changed, the court suo motu took up I.A. No. 2336 of 2002 stating that the suit is in the target list and therefore, the same has to be taken up and disposed of earlier, and found that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, the suit cannot be stayed in terms of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure and accordingly, by Ext.P5 order dated 7.8.2019, its order dated 30.01.2003 in I.A. No. 2336 of 2002 was reviewed and vacated. Challenging the said order, Ext.P5, the petitioners had come up before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. I have heard Advocate A. Arunkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Advocate Satheeshan Alakkadan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that Ext.P5 order was without jurisdiction. The Munsiff's Court had already taken up I.A. No. 2336 of 2002 on 30.01.2003 and had stayed the suit until further orders, because of the pendency of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal in S.M. No. 1084 of 1976. That being so, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the power of review could not have been exercised by the trial court after a lapse of 16 years. Thus, according to the petitioners, the order of the trial court is without jurisdiction and hence, required to be interfered with in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, Sri. Satheeshan Alakkadan, submitted that the trial of the suit was stayed on the ground that the SM proceedings were pending before the Land Tribunal, Kanhangad. Once the SM proceedings were terminated on rem