M.S. Purushan v. V.K. Padmanabhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937 RP.No. 1088 of 2012 () IN FAO.182/2011 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN FAO 182/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-09-2012 REVIEW PETITIONER(S):/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- M.S. PURUSHAN S/O.SANKUNNI, MADAPOLLAYIL, PATTANAKKADU MURI PATTANAKKADU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S):/RESPONDENT ---------------------------- 1.
V.K. PADMANABHAN DIED - LRs IMPLEADED S/O.KRISHNAN, VELAMPARAMBIL, PATTANAKKAD MURI PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 011.
SUPPLEMENTAL R2:
SURESH BABU, S/O.V.K.PADMANABHAN, VELAMPARAMBIL, PATTANAKKAD MURI PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 531.
SUPPLEMENTAL R3 :
AMBIKA, W/O.MOHANAN, AMPAZHAPPALLY HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM MURI, MUHAMMA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 531.
(SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONDENT 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED BEING THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECESED 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 11/6/14 IN IA 737/14 IN RP 1088/12) BY SRI.R.AZAD BABU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP1088/12 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE I :
COPY OF COMPROMISE PETITION DATED 26.05.2005 FILED IN CRL.R.P.NO.1333/05 ON THIS HON'BLE COURT. ANNEXURE II :
COPY OF
ORDER
DATED 27.05.2005 IN CR.R.P.NO.1333/05 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE.
jg-9/10
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.
----------------------------------- R.P.No.1088 of 2012 in F.A.O.No.182 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2015
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Heard.
2.This application is filed seeking review of the judgment delivered in the appeal. The matter arises in execution. The review petitioner is the judgment debtor. He filed application before the court below invoking Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apart from Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC. He pleaded due discharge and satisfaction and nonexecutability of the decree, since according to him, there was no subsisting debt in terms of the decree.
3.As noted in the order dated 11.06.2014, the issue deserves deeper consideration, more particularly in view of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Nani Gopal Paul
RP1088/12 -2v. T. Prasad Singh and Others [(1995) 3 SCC 579]. We are of the view that ends of justice require that the appeal deserves to be re-heard. The judgment sought to be reviewed is rendered without noticing the aforesaid decision and considering its applicability on the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, in our view, the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment and the same is liable to be reviewed and recalled. In the result, this review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 10.09.2012 in F.A.O. No.182 of 2011 is reviewed and recalled.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE) jg-25/9