Elikutty Mathai vs Thomas Kunju
2022 Latest Caselaw 1275 Ker

RP NO. 40 OF 2022
                                    1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
         FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943
                            RP NO. 40 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 8/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

           ELIKUTTY MATHAI, AGED 67 YEARS
           W/O.MATHAI, AMARAKKARAYIL, NAIKAMPARAMPIL VEEDU,
           MADAPALLY P.O., CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 546.
           BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1     THOMAS KUNJU, S/O.VARGHESE, NAIKAMPARAMPL VEEDU, (CHARUVULA
           PUTHEN VEEDU), PUNNALA P.O., PUNNALA VILLAGE,
           PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 689 696.
     2     MARIYAMMA, D/O.VARGHESE, NAIKAMPARAMPL VEEDU, (CHARUVULA
           PUTHEN VEEDU), PUNNALA P.O., PUNNALA VILLAGE,
           PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM - 689 696.
     3     BINU MATHAI,
           AMARAKKARAYIL, NAIKAMPARAMPIL VEEDU, MADAPALLY P.O.,
           CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 546.
     4     BINDHU MATHAI
           AMARAKKARAYIL, NAIKAMPARAMPIL VEEDU, MADAPALLY P.O.,
           CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 546.


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 RP NO. 40 OF 2022
                                         2




                                     ORDER

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

in the written statement, the executant not opposed sending of

the document for expert opinion. Therefore, the order of this court

whereby the order in I.A.2794/2019 dated 18/11/2021 in

O.S.No.215/2014 was confirmed is erroneous and the same is an

error apparent on the face of records liable to be reviewed.

2. As per the detailed order as extracted below in paragraph

No.3 of the judgment dated 05/01/2022, this court dismissed this

original petition (O.P(C)) No.8/2022.

3. Going by the order, the learned Munsiff dismissed the petition after having specific reference in regard to the contentions in the written statement filed by the second defendant. A copy of the written statement filed by the defendants 1 and 2 together as early on 24.07.2014 has been produced before this Court. The same would go to show that the second defendant wilfully admitted execution of sale deed No.73/2003 and specific recitals in this regard could be gathered in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed immediately after filing of the suit. Therefore, a wilful admission made by the second defendant regarding execution of the sale deed No.73/2003 cannot be eschewed by mere opinion evidence. However, I leave the question as regards to the genuineness of sale deed No.73/2003 to be decided by the Munsiff Court on evidence. However, there is no necessity to get the expert opinion in this case and the plaintiffs can prove their case by adducing other evidence in support of their contention. Thus, it appears that this original petition lacks merit and the same deserves dismissal. RP NO. 40 OF 2022

Therefore, I do not find any error on the face of records to review

the judgment. Thus, the review petition is devoid of any merits and is

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE msp