DILEEPKUMAR PANICKER, Vs. G. SATHYASEELA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVIEW Petitioners are the Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.(C). No. 33238 of 2007. The writ petition was heard and disposed of by judgment dated 26.11.2010. The questions raised in the writ petition were considered in detail and judgment was passed. At the time of admission of the writ petition in 2007, notice was served on the Respondents in the writ petition. None of the Respondents entered appearance. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on 28.10.2010. On that day, the counsel for the Petitioners argued the case. For further hearing the case was adjourned to 1.11.2010. On that day also the Petitioners counsel was heard. Finding that some important issues affecting the rights of the Respondents 1 to 3 are involved, this Court took the view that another opportunity shall be given to Respondents 1 to 3 to appear and contest the case. A detailed order was passed on 1.11.2010. By the said order this Court ordered notice by special messenger. The messenger met the Respondents. They refused to accept the notice stating that the address mentioned in the writ petition is not correct. The matter was again heard on 8.11.2010 in their absence and judgment was pronounced.

(2.) THOUGH it is not necessary to issue notice in the course of hearing, this Court thought that the presence of Respondents 1 to 3 are necessary to protect their interest. In spite of that, they have not chosen to appear and present their case.

(3.) THE review petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.