Gopalan Nair vs Pradeep Nambiar
2022 Latest Caselaw 4897 Ker

        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

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

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/