STATE OF KERALA Vs. M A BABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State / first respondent in the O.P. seeks review of my judgment dated 13th February, 2003 since clarified by me by order dated 5.3.2003 in C.M.P. 13097/03. Under judgment dated 13th February, 2003, I had afforded an opportunity to the revision petitioner, who is claimant in a land acquisition reference case to examine a witness competent to speak about a particular document which was sought to be relied on by the second respondent - Kerala Water Authority, the requisitioning authority on certain conditions. The opportunity given under judgment dated 13.2.2003 was to examine one of the parties to the particular document. Later, under the order of clarification, the expression one of the parties to the particular document was corrected as either the son of the executant of the document who is the attestor of the document or any other person who is closely acquainted with the execution of the document.

(2.) Review is sought essentially in respect of the correction or clarification made by me under order dated 5.3.2003 in C.M.P. 13097/03.

(3.) Heard the Government Pleader Smt. M. Lalitha Nair for the review petitioner and Sri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned counsel for the first respondent claimant, the petitioner in the O.P. Significantly, there is no representation for the requisitioning authority - Kerala Water Authority who should have been more concerned about the matter. Smt. M. Lalitha Nair submitted that the order of clarification under which permission has been given to examine the attestor of the document or any other person acquainted with the execution of the document is contrary to the decision of the Court reported in Raveendranatha Menon & Another v. Leelamma ( 1999 (1) KLJ 352 ) and also to the express provisions of S.91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act which prohibits adducal of oral evidence in variation of the terms of the written document. Learned counsel also submitted that in as much as the order of the learned Judge, North Paravoor, against which the O.P. was filed by the first respondent does not suffer from any apparent errors, I overstepped by my jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution in interfering with the said order.