M.K. RAJAMMA, D/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PANDAVATH HOUSE, AROOR Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2005 in I.A. No. 1099 of 2003 in O.P.(E.A.) 386 of 1996 of Additional District Court, Alappuzha. By the said order, the court below dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner. It seems that for drawing an electricity line, K.S.E. Board cut and removed the trees standing in the property of the petitioners in O.P.(E.A.)386 of 1996. While the matter was pending before the court below, additional petitioners 2 to 4 sought to get themselves impleaded by filing I.A. 262 of 1997 on the ground that the property originally belonged to late Parameswaran Pillai, and on his death it devolved on the petitioner and Gopinathan Nair and on the death of Gopinathan Nair, husband of the additional second petitioner and father of the other additional petitioners, his rights devolved on additional petitioners 2 to 4. After hearing both sides, the petition was allowed by order dated 4.8.1997. By order dated 10.12.2002, enhanced compensation was granted by the District Court and in the said order, it was observed as follows:

(2.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner approached the court below by filing I.A. 1099 of 2003 seeking review of the order dated 10.12.2002 in O.P. (E.A.) 386 of 1996 granting half share of compensation to additional petitioners 2 to 4. Reliance was placed on the dismissal of a suit, O.S. 62 of 1997 before the Sub Court, Cherthala, said to have been filed by additional petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P. (E.A.) 386 of 1996 seeking partition of the property, which came to be dismissed for default. Contending that additional petitioners 2 to 4 had no right over the property, it is pointed out that the direction of the court below in the earlier order allowing additional petitioners 2 to 4 to appropriate half share of the total compensation has to be reviewed and the entire amount has to be given to the first petitioner in O.P.(E.A.) 386 of 1996.

(3.) ADV . P.R. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below was not justified in dismissing the petition. It is also contended that in the light of the dismissal of the suit filed by additional petitioners 2 to 4 in O.P.(E.A.) 386 of 1996 for default, it is clear that they have no right over the property and the entire compensation ought to have been granted to the review petitioner.