Annamma Alex vs Ullattil Agencies
2021 Latest Caselaw 18795 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
    THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
                          RP NO. 43 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED 10.11.2020 IN RFA 883/2008
                       OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/ADDNL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 4:

    1       MRS.ANNAMMA ALEX, AGED 69 YEARS,
            W/O. LATE BABY ALEX, ERUTHICKAL HOUSE, PUTHENANGADY,
            KOTTAYAM.

    2       BINDHU VINO ABRAHAM,
            AGED 51 YEARS,
            D/O. LATE BABY ALEX, ERUTHICKAL HOUSE, PUTHENANGADY,
            KOTTAYAM.

    3       BINO BABY ALEX, AGED 46 YEARS,
            S/O. LATE BABY ALEX, ERUTHICKAL HOUSE, PUTHENANGADY,
            KOTTAYAM.

            BY ADVS.
            ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
            SRI.S.SREEDEV
            SRI.RONY JOSE



RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

            M/S. ULLATTIL AGENCIES,
            THAFEQUE BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686001,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ISSAC THOMAS, S/O.
            ITHAK, AGED 99, RESIDING AT XXIV/74, ULLATTIL HOUSE,
            NEAR UNION CLUB, KOTTAYAM - 686001.


     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
09.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 43 OF 2021                       2



                                    ORDER

A suit for recovery of money was decreed by the

trial court granting recovery of an amount of

Rs.8,20,910.79/- with 6% interest. In appeal, it was

modified by reducing the decree amount to

Rs.2,57,817/- with a direction to pay future interest

at 13.5%. Aggrieved by the interest rate awarded, the

appellant came up in review, on the ground that the

first appellate court ought to have granted only 6% in

view of the mandate under Section 34(1) CPC. Inter

alia, it was contended that no discussion worth the

name has been made in the impugned judgment with

respect to the interest payable to the sum adjudged

and decreed, without which, 13.5% interest was

ordered. A review petition can be maintained only

when there is an apparent error on the face of record.

When the decree passed is in tune with the provisions

contained, it would dis-entitle the parties from

re-agitating the issue under the coverage of a review

petition. Section 80 of the Negotiable Instrument Act

permits the court to award interest at the rate of 18%

in the absence of rate of interest consented by the

parties. What is ordered by this court comes to only

13.5% future interest though it is permissible to

grant interest up to 18%. There is no apparent error

much less any such ground so as to entitle the party

to maintain a review petition. Hence, the review

petition fails, dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp