Judgment:
1. In this proceeding, the question raised for a decision is to the procedure to be followed once the Court grants a review of its judgment / order.
2. The land belonging to the petitioner, common in both the cases, was acquired by the respondents and based on determination of compensation for the adjoining lands petitioner made a claim to the District Collector under S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, “the Act”). The District Collector made an award with which petitioner was not satisfied and thereon, invoking sub-S.3 of the said provision he requested a reference to the Civil Court for adjudication of his claim. Accordingly, reference was made and learned Sub Judge, Payyannur took the reference on file as LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008 and after hearing parties, passed a common judgment dated September 30, 2009. Petitioner thought that there was error apparent on the face of the record in the common judgment in that certain statutory benefits which he is otherwise entitled to get have not been considered by the learned Sub Judge. Thereon, petitioner filed Exts. P2, applications (in both the cases) for review of the common judgment under R.1 O.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”). The Law Officer who appeared for the respondents did not file counter and conceded to the claim of petitioner (in the applications for review). Learned Sub Judge was satisfied of the need for review and accordingly, allowed the applications by separate orders (Exts. P3 in OP (C) No. 2843 of 2011). In OP (C) No. 2852 of 2011, the order is not separately extracted and produced but the order is found on Ext. P2, application which is similar to Ext. P3, order).
3. Pursuant to the order granting review, nothing transpired from the learned Sub Judge and it would appear that in the meantime the officer who granted review was transferred. Before the new Sub Judge, petitioner filed applications purporting to be under S.151 and S.152 of the Code. Those applications were dismissed as per order on Ext. P4, applications. The said orders are under challenge in these proceedings.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that when the Court has committed a mistake, it is not necessary that party should have reminded the Court of the necessity to correct the mistake. Reliance is placed on the decision in Keshardeo Chamria v. Radhakissen Chamria and Others, 1953 KHC 297 : AIR 1953 SC 23: 1953 SCR 136: 1953 (1) MLJ 100: 1953 ALJ 101: 1953 BLJR 70 (paragraph 13 and 21) and Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, 1961 KHC 582 : AIR 1961 SC 832 : 1961 (2) SCR 918: 1961 (1) Ker LR 437 (paragraph 13). It is also contended by learned counsel that Ext. P4, application in OP (C) No. 2843 of 2011 and Ext. P3, application in OP (C) No. 2852 of 2011 could be treated as one under S.151 of the Code reminding the learned Sub Judge of the necessity to pass revised judgment in the reference cases. It is submitted by learned counsel that reading R.1, R.4 and R.8 of O.47 of the Code the only inference possible is that once review is allowed, the order reviewed becomes non - existent and it is the duty of the Court to pass fresh order / judgment as the case may be. Reliance is placed on the decision in Bhargavi Amma v. Sankara Panicker, 1961 KHC 386: 1961 KLJ 650: ILR 1961 (1) Ker. 385, and in particular paragraph 7 and 8.
5. So far as review granted by learned Sub Judge in these cases is concerned, it is seen from the respective orders that the application for review was not objected by the Law Officer who appeared for the respondents, rather he conceded to the claim in the applications for review and being satisfied of the need for review, learned Sub Judge has granted the review. But, in the subsequent applications (Ext. P4 in OP (C) No. 2843 of 2011 and Ext. P3 in OP (C) No. 2852 of 2011) petitioner requested that the common judgment and decree may be modified in the decreetal portion as prayed for.
6. Assuming that the relief as prayed in the said applications could not have been granted, learned Sub Judge was required to consider whether in the light of the order granting review it was necessary to pass a revised judgment. In Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others (supra) referred above in paragraph 13 it is observed that when there was a failure to draw up a decree it is not necessary that the party should have intimated the Court about drawing up of the decree as that was the function of the Court.
7. Sub-R.2 of R.4 of O.47 of the Code says that when the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same subject to the proviso mentioned therein. R.8 of O.47 of the Code says that when an application for review is granted, a note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court may at once re - hear the case or make such order in regard to the re - hearing as it thinks fit. A joint reading of sub-R.4(2) and R.8 of O.47 of the Code leaves me in no doubt that once a review is granted, the original order / judgment in respect of which review is granted becomes non - existent and then it is the function of the Court to pass fresh judgment / order. It is so held in the decision in Bhargavi Amma v. Sankara Panicker (supra) (paragraphs 7 and 8 after a survey of various decisions of the various High Courts). Thus, in view of the review granted, the common judgment in LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008 became non - existent, it was the function of the learned Sub Judge to pass revised judgment in the respective cases after considering the questions raised in the applications for review also. In the circumstance, subsequent applications (Ext. P4 in OP (C) No. 2843 of 2011 and Ext. P3 in OP (C) No. 2852 of 2011) need only be treated as a request to the learned Sub Judge to rectify the mistake the Court has committed in not passing a revised judgment in LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008.
8. In the light of what I have stated above, it follows that learned Sub Judge was required to pass revised judgment in LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008.
9. Resultantly these original petitions are allowed and impugned orders on Ext. P4, application (in OP (C) No. 2843 of 2011) and Ext. P3, application in OP (C) No. 2852 of 2011 are set aside. Learned Sub Judge is directed to treat the said applications as a reminder to the Court to pass revised judgment in LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008. Learned Sub Judge shall pass revised judgment in LAR Nos. 18 and 19 of 2008 after hearing the parties and after taking into account the points raised in the applications for review as well. Parties shall appear before the learned Sub Judge on 30/09/2011.