This is a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to have the order dated 17.9.2014 in C.R.P. (LR). 431 of 2012 reviewed.
2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an omission on the part of the counsel to represent at the time when the matter was taken up for hearing and that has resulted in the dismissal of the appeal by the appellate authority. Learned counsel points out that the petitioner before this Court had infact filed an affidavit before the appellate authority expressing her willingness to adduce evidence in support of her claim and the court made her to believe that it is going to remand the matter and thereafter dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has been paying tax for the property and that would show that she is in possession of the same.
3. It is pointed out that a connected matter has been allowed by this Court and the matter has been remanded to the Land Tribunal and there is no reason why the same approach should not be adopted in this case. It is pointed out that unless the order is reviewed and the petitioner is given an opportunity to establish her claim, irreparable loss and injury will be caused to her.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader strongly opposed the petition by pointing out that there is laches on the part of the petitioner and she does not deserve any sympathy. Learned counsel for the respondent Devaswom pointed out that not a scrap of paper was produced before the Land Tribunal or before the Appellate Authority in support of the claim of tenancy made by the petitioner. Under those circumstances, no leniency is warranted.
5. Even though it could not be said that there is any error apparent n the face of the record warranting a review of the order of this Court, in the light of the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a rethinking becomes necessary. Documents were handed over to show that the petitioner has been paying tax in respect of 40 cents in relation to the claim from 1981 onwards. There is some semblance of possession with her. Whether that is sufficient to prove tenancy is a matter for determination. This Court has also in its earlier order observed that the petitioner has filed an affidavit before the Appellate Authority wherein the petitioner had expressed her willingness to adduce evidence in support of her claim. According to her, the Appellate Authority gave her the impression that it was not necessary since the Appellate Authority was thinking of remanding the matter. However, the appellate authority dismissed the delay condonation petition and consequently the appeal also. This Court made reference of this aspect and observed that if that be the position, the proper course open to the petitioner was to seek review of the earlier order of the appellate authority.
6. Whatever that be, in the light of the fact that there is something to show that the petitioner may be in possession of the property, it is felt that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to agitate her claim. However, for the gross negligence and omission, she needs to be mulcted with costs to compensate the injury caused to the respondents.
In the result, this review petition is allowed, the oder under review is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Tribunal concerned for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of what has been stated above on condition that that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs to the counsel for the Devaswom appearing before this Court within a period of three weeks from today.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.