IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
REVIEW PETITION NO. 353 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2022 IN O.P.(RC) NO.114 OF
2017 OF THE HIGH COURT
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
SUHARABI
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O ABU HAJI,
PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHEMANCHERY VILLAGE,
THIRUVANGUR DESOM, CHEMENCHERY P.O, KOYILANDY,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673304.
BY ADV M.MUHAMMED SHAFI
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 SAREENA
AGED 39 YEARS, D/O P. MAMMU,
CHEMANCHERY VILLAGE, THIRUVANGUR DESOM,
CHEMENCHERY P.O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673304.
2 P.T. HARIS
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O ALI, HILAL MANZIL,
CHEMANCHERY VILLAGE, THIRUVANGUR DESOM,
CHEMENCHERY P.O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673304.
BY ADVS.
P.A.HARISH
FIROZ K.M.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2
Review Petition No.353 of 2022 in
O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017
ORDER
Ajithkumar, J.
This review petition under Section 114, Order XLVII, Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed by the 1st respondent in O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017. He is aggrieved of the observation in the impugned judgment that the Execution Court would decide whether any re-delivery of the petition schedule building is required or not, depending upon the decision in E.A.No.111 of 2017 in E.P.No.93 of 2015 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2009.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that actual state of affairs of the building in question was brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017, including by producing Exts.R1(a) and R1(b) photographs, but without considering the state of the building that it was not an inhabitable one, observed so in the judgment. It is her contention that the said observations will adversely affect the case of the petitioner 3 Review Petition No.353 of 2022 in O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017 before the court below.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing respondents.
4. E.A.No.111 of 2017 in E.P.No.93 of 2015 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2009 was a petition filed by the 1 st respondent seeking to condone lapse occurred on her part in depositing the balance amount of arrears of rent. As per the impugned judgment, the Execution Court was directed to reconsider and decide afresh E.A.No.111 of 2017. While deciding the said question, reference to the state of building in question was unnecessary. The contention of the petitioner that the building is dilapidated and practically not in existence is a matter to be agitated before the court concerned, if the question of re-delivery arises. We only had stated the position of law in the statement to which the petitioner took exception. In the said circumstances, we find no error in the judgment impugned in this petition. The petition for review is 4 Review Petition No.353 of 2022 in O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017 accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr