P N ANANDAN Vs. DAMODARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the death of a defenders / respondent to a proceeding will make the judgment passed without knowing the same, a nullity in all cases, is the point for consideration.

(2.) The Review Petition has been filed by the son of the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition stating that, the judgment passed by this Court on 31/03/2009 suffers from material errors apparent on the face of the records, particularly in view of the fact that the fourth respondent therein, at the time of passing the judgment was not alive and that the death of the said respondent which took place on 08/08/2008 was not brought to the notice of this Court by the Writ Petitioner and hence that the judgment is a nullity.

(3.) As per the judgment, the impugned order therein (i.e., Ext. P10) was set aside and the concerned respondents were directed to cause the 'Chinese Net' to be shifted to the appropriate place as shown in Ext. P8 Sketch prepared by the departmental authorities pursuant to Ext. P7 judgment passed by this Court. The learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner submits that, the judgment having been passed after the death of the fourth respondent, cannot have any consequence and that the Review petitioner who is stated as the beneficiary of Ext. P10 order dated 29/12/2006, by virtue of the consent agreement to operate the 'Chinese Net' stated as executed by his deceased father (vide Annexure A1 dated 27/11/2006) is very much entitled to step into the shoes of the deceased and contest the matter. It is also pointed out that the matter has to be adjudicated afresh, after impleading all the legal heirs in the party array.