NABEESUMMA Vs. BEEPATHUMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners who are landholders in respect of the property in which respondents 1 to 6 are kudikidappukars challenge the validity of Ext. P-1 order passed by the 7th respondent, Land Tribunal, Tirurangadi, in O. A. No. 144 of 1973 on its file, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

(2.) Sri. A. K. Sreenivasan, counsel for the petitioners, draws my attention to the averment in Para.2 of the original petition where it has been stated as follows: -

(3.) Now, considering the facts of this case, we find that the words "not pressed" instead of "withdrawn" has been unhappily used; the reason stated for not pressing is that there was no proper notice. It is also found that the endorsement "not pressed" was made even on the very first day of the hearing. In the second application that was filed and which resulted in Ext. P-1 order, it is specifically stated that the previous application happened to be dismissed as "not pressed" for the reason that there was no proper notice. It is not an instance where, in a contest, the parties having availed of a fair opportunity to prove their case, the court had pronounced its judgment on the points in issue on their merit. Dismissal of the proceeding on the basis of an endorsement that it was not pressed for want of proper notice virtually amounts to it having been allowed to be withdrawn. The effect of the endorsement in the proceedings before the Land Tribunal has to be construed, due regard being given to the circumstances leading to it and the spirit in which the parties understood it, without mechanically giving the meaning assigned to those expressions in the Code of Civil Procedure, the provisions of which have application to the proceedings before the Land Tribunal only to the extent specifically provided for.