Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
PUTHENVILA SASIDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
CHELORA CHANDROTH NARAYANAN NAMBIAR – Respondent
WP(C)/4890/2008
Review - Writ Petition - N/A - The court emphasized the need for a proper hearing regarding the dismissal of a review application, stressing that absence of parties should not lead to dismissal without consideration of the merits of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenges the dismissal of a review application concerning a previous order for a cost payment, arguing that it was improper as the appeal had already been restored.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the review application due to absence of the petitioner was erroneous and directed that the review application be restored for proper hearing.
Issues: Whether the review application could be dismissed for the absence of the parties without a proper hearing on the merits of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that dismissing a review application without addressing its merits, especially due to the absence of the parties, was improper, warranting the restoration of the review.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of by restoring the review application for proper hearing.
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~~
This writ petition is preferred against the order by which the court dissmissed the application for review sought for in I.A.No.1564/2007. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits before me that the appeal was restored to file as per the order on 25.1.2006 and it came up for hearing on 16.10.2006. On that day the court directed the appellant to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only) to the District Legal Service Authority and posted it to 23.10.2006. As the cost was not paid the I.A. was closed. To review that order I.A.No.1564/2007 was filed and it was dismissed as the petitioner and respondent were absent. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the second order directing the appellant to pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- is illegal on the basis that the court has already passed an order restoring the appeal as early as on 25.1.2006. If it is correct and if the payment of the cost is ordered on the very same I.A. then it is a mistake that requires correction by the court below. If it is some other I.A. it may have to be treated independently. The court should not have dismissed the review application for absence of the petitioner. Therefore, I direct the court below to restore the review application, I.A.No.1564/2007 and dispose of the same after hearing both sides.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE)
ps
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
