Kerala High Court
Pius.C. Mundadan vs Kumari Sebastian on 23 August, 2025
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
SATURDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 1ST BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OP(C) NO.2306 OF 2022 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
PIUS.C. MUNDADAN
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. LATE M.L. CYRIAC, NOW RESIDING AT CHURCH NAGAR 37,
ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADV PIUS.C. MUNDADAN (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KUMARI SEBASTIAN
AGED 65 YEARS
W/O. SEBASTIAN KATTUMANA ATHANI, NEDUMBASSERI, NOW
RESIDING AT E2B, WILLINGTON ENCLAVE, THEVARA FERRY ROAD,
KOCHI., PIN - 682013
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA NO. 1) KOCHI METRO
RAIL PROJECT, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682030
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
,COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, PIN -
682030
OTHER PRESENT:
PIUS C MUNDADAN(PART-IN-PERSON)
SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SMT. SYLAJA, GP
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
3
ORDER
Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2025
This review petition has been filed by the applicant /
advocate to review the order passed by this court dated
31.05.2023 in I.A No.2/2022 by dismissing his application for
impleading himself in the petition.
2.The respondent is a party-in-person, submits that the
petitioner made some allegation against the applicant in
Paragraph 12 of the original petition and obtained an interim
order from this court; therefore, the petitioner wants to implead
himself in the petition to argue the matter. I.A. No.2/2022 filed
by the petitioner for implead himself. But this Hon'ble Court was
pleased to pass an order on 18-01-2023 as follows :-
"In view of Rule 152 of the Rules of the High
Court, 1971, the question whether the
petitioner is to be heard will be decided at
the time of hearing the Original Petition"
3. Subsequently, the matter came up before this court
(before another Hon'ble Judge), the I.A No.2/2022, came to be
dismissed on 31.05.2023 with the following directions:
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
"The petitioner seeks his impleadment as a
party to the proceedings. He is not a party
to the order under challenge and not in the
party array of the proceedings pending
before the trial court. If he is an aggrieved
person by the impugned order, the remedy
lies by way of an appeal with leave of court.
He cannot be allowed to implead himself in
the present petition. Hence, the application
- I.A.N0.2/2022 will stand dismissed. "
4.The applicant has now approached this Court seeking
review of the order, on the ground that this Court had earlier
directed that his application would be heard along with the main
petition. However, contrary to the said order, a subsequent
order was passed by dismissing his application. Therefore, he
submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record,
which should be recalled and restored to his application for the
purpose of his argument.
5.The counsel for the petitioner objected to the
impleadment application, stating that there are no remarks
made by the trial court against the 3rd applicant (party-in-
person), who is a practicing lawyer. Merely, the petition only
contains certain observations and the matter has not yet been
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
heard by this Court, nor have any adverse remarks been passed
against him. Therefore, there is no necessity to hear his
application for impleading himself in the petition.
6.Having heard the arguments and perused the records. It
is not in dispute that the petitioner is the plaintiff before the
trial court, and his application for the appointment of a
Commissioner was dismissed. The respondents contend that
while granting an interim order by staying the further
proceedings, this court made an observation against the 3 rd
party applicant and therefore, he must be heard before passing
any final order. Hence, it is necessary to mention the interim
order passed by this court on 24.11.2022.
7.Paragraph 2 of the interim order passed by this court on
24.11.2022 would read as under:
"On a consideration of the pleadings and
materials on record, and after perusing Ext.P12
order, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made
out a prima facie case for an interim order. Hence,
I stay all further proceedings in LAR No.1 of 2017
of the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Authority, Ernakulam, for a period
of two months"
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
8.The 3 rd
applicant is an Advocate, submits that the court,
while passing the order mentioned, 'considering the pleadings
and materials on record, granted injunction, wherein there was
a remark made by the petitioner at Paragraph 12 of the original
petition'. Therefore, it is contended that the observations made
in the interim order affect the 3rd party applicant, particularly in
the statement made by him in the affidavit accompanying the
interlocutory application seeking the appointment of a
Commissioner. Hence, he has to be heard.
9.On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there is
no remarks have been made by the trial court against the 3 rd
party applicant, even though some remarks were made by the
petitioner in the affidavit. However, it is noted that in Paragraph
12 of the petition, some allegations were raised by the petitioner
against the 3rd party applicant, and this court has not yet heard
the final argument and has not made any adverse remarks
against the 3rd party applicant, who is an Advocate.
10.If such being the case, impleading the 3rd party
applicant in the petition is not necessary. Therefore, even
though this court had earlier observed that the interlocutory
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
application should be heard along with the main petition, in view
of the subsequent order by dismissing the application, holding
that if the impugned order affects the 3rd party applicant, he has
the remedy of filing an appeal. This order shall not stand in the
way of the 3rd party applicant for approaching the court, if any
remarks are passed by this court or adverse marks made by this
court, while passing the final order. That apart if this court
accepts any remarks made by the Advocate for the petitioner
and this court feels for passing any adverse remarks against an
Advocate or any Judicial Officer, the Court will certainly afford
an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before
passing such remarks. Therefore, when there is no adverse
remarks have been passed, and without hearing the person
against whom such remarks are made, it is not necessary to hear
the 03rd applicant in this petition. However this court granted
liberty to the 3rd party applicant to submit his response, in case
this court or this petitioner makes any drastic adverse remarks
against the Advocate / 3rd party applicant / any Judicial Officer,
who passed the order, definitely this court will permit the 3 rd
party applicant to make such submissions even without being
2025:KER:64569
RP NO. 1110 OF 2025
impleaded as a party.
11.Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of, by
granting liberty as aforementioned.
The interlocutory application for condoning the delay is
hereby dismissed as does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN
JUDGE
SJ
