JOSE S/O. THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L .A.R. No. 22 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge's Court, North Paravur was disposed of by that court on 30.8.2008 on the premise that no claim statement was filed and there is no representation by the claimant. It was recorded that the claimant was absent. Though that judgment states that the materials have been perused by the learned Sub Judge and that there is no evidence to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, obviously, the court proceeded on the basis that the claimant had no pleadings on record in the form of a claim statement. But the materials produced as Annexure A1 to A3 categorically shows that there was a claim statement on record and the court had received it. Obviously, therefore, we have necessarily to treat the judgment dated 30.8.2008 as an ex parte one.

(2.) THE claimant filed I.A. No. 5128 of 2008 invoking Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order restoring the land acquisition reference to file after setting aside the order dated 30.8.2008. It is essentially an application to set aside the ex parte judgment and award issued on 30.8.2008.

(3.) NEEDLESS to say, going by the different precedents laid down by the apex court and this Court, the land acquisition reference has all trappings of a civil suit. This principle is also reiterated in Shahida Beevi v. State of Kerala, 2008 (1) KLT 206, wherein this Court categorically laid down that in cases of ex parte disposal on default of the claimant, it would be open to the claimant to move for restoration by invoking the provisions of Order IX Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC. We are inclined to take a view that the said judgment applied on all fours to the facts and circumstances of this case.