Kerala High Court
T.V.Radhakrishnan vs T.V.Radhakrishnan on 8 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1943
OP(C).No.875 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DTD 14.1.2021 IN IA 180/2016 IN LAR
44/2008 OF SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT-CLAIMANT:
T.V.RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.K.KUNHIRAMAN WARRIER
PARAMESWARAVILASAM, THILLANKERY
KANNUR-670 702.
BY ADVS.
SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
SMT.V.T.LITHA
SMT.K.R.MONISHA
SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB
SHRI.SIDHARTH.R.WARIYAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER-RESPONDENT:
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA)
THALASSERY 670 101.
SRI. M.I. JOHNSON (SR.G.P)
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C)No.875 of 2021
:-2-:
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2021
J U D G M E N T
The sole claimant in L.A.R.No.44/2008
challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the Sub Court,
Payyannur, allowing I.A.No.180/2016 filed by the
State, seeking correction of the alleged clerical
error in Ext.P1 judgment.
2. The court below in a flea-bite sentence
allowed the petition by the impugned order dated
14.01.2021.
3. I heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as the learned Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.
4. The court below has not stated the reasons
for ordering correction of the alleged clerical
mistakes. The learned Government Pleader submits
that while mentioning the figure of the paid-up
O.P.(C)No.875 of 2021
:-3-:
amount in the judgment, an inadvertent mistake
crept in. The learned counsel for the petitioner,
on the other hand, submits that the correction
sought to be made cannot be said to be the result
of a clerical mistake. In any view of the matter,
the impugned order does not disclose the reason on
which the correction was allowed.
5. After hearing the submissions made on
behalf of the parties, I am of the opinion that the
matter requires a re-look and a fresh decision in
accordance with law. For this purpose, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the original petition is allowed
setting aside the impugned order dated 14.01.2021.
The court below is called upon to reconsider
I.A.No.180/2016 after hearing the parties and in
accordance with law. Until I.A.No.180/2016 is
disposed of, the execution proceedings shall stand
O.P.(C)No.875 of 2021
:-4-:
stayed.
All pending interlocutory applications are
closed.
Sd/-
T.V.ANILKUMAR
JUDGE
ami/
O.P.(C)No.875 of 2021
:-5-:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUB COURT,
PAYYANNUR IN L.A.R NO. 44/2008 DATED
22.07.2009.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE OF THE SUB COURT,
PAYYANNUR IN L.A.R. NO. 44/2008 DATED
22.07.2009.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PETITION NO.
111/2009 IN L.A.R. NO. 44/2008 IN THE SUB
COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED 15.10.2009.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION STATEMENT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN E.P. NO.
111/2009 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PAYYANNUR
DATED 02.07.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 180/2016 N L.A.R. NO.
44/2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED
11.2.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY
THE PETITIONER TO I.A. NO. 180/2016 IN
L.A.R. NO. 44/2008 DATED 28.09.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COURT,
PAYYANNUR IN I.A. NO. 180/2016 IN L.A.R.
NO. 44/2008 DATED 14.01.2021.
