Kerala High Court
Jaise George vs Sini Sebastian on 11 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942
RP.No.788 OF 2020 IN MA (EXE.). 5/2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MA (EXE.) 5/2018 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
JAISE GEORGE, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE JOSEPH
PUTHENVEETTIL, CHETTUTHODU P.O, THIDANADU,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 508
REPRESENTED BY HS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, K.K
JOSEPH, S/O. LATE KURIAN, KURICHIYA PARAMBIL
HOUSE, VELLASSERY KARA, KADUTHURUTHY P.O, VAIKOM
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 604
BY ADVS.
SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
SMT.K.S.ARCHANA
RESPONDENT:
SINI SEBASTIAN, D/O. SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT
CHAMAKKALAYIL, CHETTUTHODU P.O, THINDANADU,
KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN 686 508, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER , C.C SEBASTIAN, S/O. CHACKO, AGED
65 YEARS, ERESIDING AT CHAMAKKALAYIL, CHETTUTHODU
P.O, THIDANADU, KONDOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRANOY K.KOTTARAM
R1 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No.788 OF 2020 IN MA (EXE.). 5/2018
..2..
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of February 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J
The review petition was filed by the respondent
in the Mat. Appeal. The review petitioner is the
judgment debtor. In execution, he raised objection
in regard to the executability of the decree on the
ground that the decree holder acquired citizenship
of the foreign country - Australia, and therefore,
she cannot acquire the agricultural property agreed
to be conveyed by the judgment debtor based on a
compromise decree. The objection was sustained.
Challenging the order in execution, the decree
holder filed the appeal.
2. This Court disposed of the appeal holding
that the question whether the decree holder can
acquire the agricultural land in India does not come
into the consideration in view of the decree passed
against the judgment debtor. Accordingly, the order
of the Execution Court was set aside and the
RP.No.788 OF 2020 IN MA (EXE.). 5/2018
..3..
execution petition was restored.
3. In this review, the learned counsel for the
review petitioner urged that he was not heard before
passing the judgment. Apart from that argument, the
learned counsel for the review petitioner submits
that this Court passed the judgment erroneously
without adverting to Sec. 4 of the Foreign Exchange
Management (Acquistion and Transfer of immovable
property in India) Regulations, 2000.
4. It is seen that the review petitioner was
served notice. But it seems that the review
petitioner was not heard. Any how, we do not find
any reason to review the judgment. The Execution
Court is bound by the decree. The Execution Court
cannot go beyond the decree to hold that decree is
inexecutable. This is not a case where the decree
passed is a nullity. The scope of adjudication in
execution is limited. In view of the fact that
there is a clear decree, whereby the judgment debtor
is bound to convey the land, which was the subject
RP.No.788 OF 2020 IN MA (EXE.). 5/2018
..4..
matter of the compromise decree, the Execution Court
is bound to execute the decree.
In such circumstances, this Court allowed the
Mat. Appeal. We do not find any scope for reviewing
the judgment as the question involved in the Mat.
Appeal itself was only a point of law. Therefore,
we dismiss the review petition. No order as to
costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
PR
