BALAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner filed O. A. No. 106 of 1972 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Edakkad, invoking S. 80b of the Kerala Land reforms Act, 1963, for purchase of his kudikidappu. THE Land Tribunal allowed the said application holding that the purchase price of Rs. 2376/- is payable to the respondents before the Tribunal. Each of the two respondents preferred an appeal against the said order of the Land Tribunal. THE 1st respondent before the Tribunal preferred A. A. No. 320 of 1973 and the 2nd respondent preferred A. A. No. 442 of 1973, both before the Appellate Authority (Land reforms), Kozhikod e. THE said appeals were allowed. THE revision petitioner was held to be not entitled to claim the benefit of a kudikidappukaran. THE two appeals were disposed of by a common judgment. This revision was filed on 16-5-1975 against the decision in A. A. No. 442 of 1973 aforesaid Note that the revision petitioner did not prefer any appeal against the decision of the Appellate Authority in A. A. No. 320 of 1973. Long after filing the revision petition the revision petitioner has filed two applications, CMP. Nos. 16289 of 1977 and 16290 of 1977. By the first mentioned petition the revision petitioner seeks to amend the revision petition by adding in the cause-title the number of the appeal, A. A No. 320 of 1973 and by substituting the words "a. A. No. 442 of 1973 and A. A No. 320 of 1973" in the place of "a. A. No. 442 of 1973" in the first sentence of Para. 4. A similar substitution is prayed for in Para. 5 also. In short the object of the amendment is to include the number "a. A. No. 320 of 1973" also in the revision. CMP. No. 16290 of 1977 is an application to condone the delay of 874 days in amending the revision petition so as to include the judgment in A. A No. 320 of 1973 also as one against which this revision is filed.

(2.) IT is pointed out by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent has filed objections to the maintainability of this civil revision petition on 24-6-1977 and it was about four months thereafter that CMP. Nos. 16289 and 16290 of 1977 above referred to were filed. The maintainability of this revision petition is questioned raising the ground that the decision of the Appellate Authority in A. A. No. 320 of 1973 would operate as res judicata The submission on behalf of the 2nd respondent is that there is no bona fides in the aforesaid applications and that there is inordinate delay to convert this civil revision petition as one against the decision in A. A. No. 320 of 1973 also.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Narhari. Shanker (AIR. 1953 S. C 419), S. Singh v. D Kunwar (AIR. 1966 SC. 1332: 1966 ALJ. 578) and Lonankutty v. Thomman (AIR. 1976 SC. 1645) submits that since the two appeals arose from the same proceedings, viz. , O. A. No. 106 of 1972 on the file of the Land Tribunal, edakkad, there can be no question of the rule of res judicata being invoked in this case. THE learned counsel for the petitioner went to the extent of submitting that in fact this revision is against the common judgment in both the appeals and the omission to mention the number of one of the appeals in the revision memo is of no consequence.