Judgment:
Antony Dominic, J.
1. The petitioner was the claimant in LAR No. 27/2008 on the file of Sub Court, Mavelikkara. According to the petitioner, by a bonafide mistake of the clerk attached to the Office of his Advocate, Vakalath on his behalf was filed in the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2008 before the same Court. As a result of this, when LAR No. 27/2008 was considered, there was no representation on his behalf and the reference was accordingly closed.
2. Subsequently, pointing out the mistake committed by the counsel, I.A. No. 273/2008 was filed seeking reopening of the proceedings. That application was rejected by Ext.P1 order on the ground that the affidavit filed in support of the petition was defective. Again I.A. No. 1868/2008 was filed praying for re-opening the proceedings in LAR No. 27/2008, a copy of which is Ext.P2. This I.A. was considered and Ext.P3 order was passed by the Sub Court, Mavelikkara holding that the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2007 was examined and that the Vakalath allegedly filed was not seen in the file. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 order was passed referring to the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2007 and not the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2008, in which the vakalath was wrongly filed by the counsel. It is stated that for that reason, Ext.P3 order is illegal and has to be set aside.
3. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that he has been instructed that the number of LAR shown in the impugned order, viz., LAR 24/2008, is only a typographical error and that the order is otherwise perfectly correct.
4. However, on going through the order, what is seen is that the Court has only verified the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2007. In any case, having regard to the seriousness of the consequence that has visited the petitioner, I am inclined to think that the matter needs to be reconsidered and that the Sub Court should pass a fresh order verifying the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2008.
5. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P3 and direct the Sub Court, Mavelikkara to reconsider the matter referring to the proceedings in LAR No. 24/2008 and pass fresh orders in the matter.
6. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, if this judgment is left with the aforesaid direction, the petitioner will be getting unmerited advantage of interest including for the period subsequent to the closure of the proceedings for the default of his counsel. Even according to the petitioner, the respondents have not contributed to the situation in any manner, and therefore, I do not think that there is any justification in enabling the petitioner to claim interest for the period subsequent to the order closing the proceedings till revised order is passed by the Sub Court.
7. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: That the Sub Court shall reconsider I.A. No. 1868/2008 filed by the petitioner in LAR No. 27/2008 with notice to the parties and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that for the period from the date of closure of the proceedings of LAR No. 27/2008 till the date an order is passed on Ext.P2 as directed above, the claimant will not be eligible for interest. It is directed that directions to this effect will be incorporated as a part of the final award to be passed in the LAR. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.