IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 9TH VAISAKHA, 1944
RP NO. 276 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 1204/2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
GOPALAN NAIR
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O.RAMAN PILLA, NOW RESIDING AT GOPAL RUBBER
ESTATE, PANJAL, THRISSUR - 679 531.
BY ADV SREELAL N.WARRIER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PRADEEP NAMBIAR
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.PREMAKUMARI NAMBIAR, "NARAYANEEYAM",
CHITTOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016.
2 PRASANTH NAMBIAR
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O.PEMAKUAMRI NAMBIAR, "NARAYANEEYAM",
CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016.
3 PRASAD NAMBIAR
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.PREMKUMARI NAMBIAR, "NARAYANEEYAM",
CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 016.
4 VENUGOPALAN
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O.KONNANATHU DEVIAMMA, RESIDING AT 7TH FLOOR,
ALUKKAS CASTLE, AYYANTHOLE - 682 003.
5 RAMANI GOPALAN
AGED 69 YEARS
D/O.KONNANATHU DEVIAMMA, MRRA 34, MANGATTU
ROAD, 3RD CROSS, MANANGALAM, COCHIN - 682 025.
6 SUVARNA PRAKASH
AGED 70 YEARS
D/O.KONNANATHU DEVIAMMA, MRRA 34, MANGATTU
ROAD, 3RD CROSS, MANANGALAM, COCHIN 682 025.
7 PRIYADARSINI
AGED 49 YEARS
D/O.RAMANI GOPALAN, RESIDING AT 13A, GREAT
ORCHIRA, MOTHER FLAT, VIDHYA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.
R.P.No.276/2022 in O.P.(C) No.1204/2021
-2-
8 PREETHYLATHA
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O.RAMANI GOPALAN, RESIDING SANTHAM, PAINKULAM
VIA., CHERUTHURUTHY.
9 PRAMODE
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O.RAMANI GOPALAN, RESIDING OF 10E, GREAT
ORCHID, MOTHER FLAT, VIDHYA NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.
10 PRAVEEN PRAKASH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.SUVARNA PRAKASH, NANDANAM, NJRA 116,
ARAVINDAKSHAN LANE, JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,
COCHIN - 682 025.
11 PREETHA
AGED 46 YEARS
D/O.SUVARNA PRAKASH, NANDANAM, NJRA - 116,
ARAVINDAKSHAN LANE, JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,
COCHIN - 682 025.
12 K.P.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O.K.M.NAMBIAR AND H/O.PREMAKUMARI NAMBIAR,
"NARAYANEEYAM", CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682
016.
13 RAMAKRISHNAN
AGED 64 YEARS
S/O.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, "PRADEETHA", KANNANATH
HOUSE, PAINKULAM P.O., THALAPPILLY - 679 531.
14 PRASEETHA
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. LATE RADHIKA KRISHNAN, "PRASEETHA",
KONNANATH HOUSE, PAINKULAM P.O., THALAPPILLY -
679 531.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
29.04.3033, THE COURT ON 29.04.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.276/2022 in O.P.(C) No.1204/2021
-3-
R.P.No.276/2022 in O.P.(C) No.1204/2021
-4-
ORDER
Dated this the 29th day of April, 2022 The review petitioner had filed the original petition challenging the order by which his claim petition, E.A.No.654 of 2017 in E.P.No.152 of 2016 in O.S.No.979 of 1993 was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. While dismissing the execution application, the executing court directed the decree holders to file a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 for removal of obstruction and the rights of the claim petitioner to raise a claim for value of improvements alone was reserved. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the original petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97, without prejudice to his right to avail the remedy under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC. It was also observed R.P.No.276/2022 in O.P.(C) No.1204/2021 -5- that, having decided the question of maintainability, the execution court could not have proceeded further and directed the decree holder to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97, reserving the petitioner's right to improvements alone.
3. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner contended that the judgment is bad by reason of an apparent error, inasmuch as the finding of this Court that, the direction to file application under Order 21 Rule 97 will not take away the petitioner's right to avail the remedy under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC, is being interpreted to hold that the only remedy now available to the petitioner is to file an application under Order 21 Rule 99, after he is dispossessed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no error in R.P.No.276/2022 in O.P.(C) No.1204/2021 -6- the judgment, let alone any error apparent on its face.
Having heard the Counsel on either side, I am of the definite opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Needless to say that the observation in the judgment does not have the effect of confining the petitioner's right to the filing of application under Order 21 Rule 99 alone and the petitioner can resort to other remedies, if any available.
The review petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/