← Library
High Court of KeralaRP/647/2014disposed of

Renjith Madhavan v. Venkateswara Shenoi

2015-07-16Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai,Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015/25TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 647 of 2014 () IN RCRev..327/2012 ------------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RC (Rev). 327/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 13-08-2013 REVIEW PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER:

-------------------------------------------

1. RENJITH MADHAVAN, AGED 47 YEARS S/O E.A MADHAVAN, DOOR NO 40/4804 A, BLUE DAY CAFE PADMA JUNCTION, M.G ROAD, COCHIN 35

2. A.S SANTHOSH, S/O A.K SANKARAN, DOOR NO 40/480A, BLUE DAY CAFE PADMA JUNCTION, M.G ROAD, COCHIN 35 BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

---------------------------------------------------- VENKITESWARA SHENOI,, AGED 66 YEARS S/O NARAYANAN SHENOI, KALARICKAL HOUSE DOOR NO 40/4804B, BLUE DAY CAFE, PADMA JUNCTION M.G ROAD, COCHIN 35 REPRESENTED BY HIS DAUGHTER & POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER PRIYA V SHENOI DOOR NO 40/4804B, BLUE DAY CAFE, PADMA JUNCTION M.G ROAD, COCHIN 35 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.647/2014 in R.C.R. No.327/2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of July, 2015

O R D E R

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The review petition is filed seeking to correct the amount shown as Rs.9 Lakhs in paragraph 9 as Rs.12 Lakhs, paid as security.

2. It is pointed out that the figure noted in paragraph 9 of the judgment as Rs.9 Lakhs, is a mistake and has to be corrected as Rs.12 Lakhs. The case of the review petitioners is that they have paid an amount of Rs.12 Lakhs as security to the landlord.

2. We allow the correction, but the same will not be treated as a finding by this Court as regards the correctness of the total amount, if any, received by the landlord as security deposit. The Review Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) (A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE.) kav/