Suharabi vs Sareena
2022 Latest Caselaw 8518 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
                                &
         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
  WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 REVIEW PETITION NO. 353 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2022 IN O.P.(RC) NO.114 OF
                      2017 OF THE HIGH COURT
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

         SUHARABI
         AGED 50 YEARS, D/O ABU HAJI,
         PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL HOUSE, CHEMANCHERY VILLAGE,
         THIRUVANGUR DESOM, CHEMENCHERY P.O, KOYILANDY,
         KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673304.
         BY ADV M.MUHAMMED SHAFI


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:

    1    SAREENA
         AGED 39 YEARS, D/O P. MAMMU,
         CHEMANCHERY VILLAGE, THIRUVANGUR DESOM,
         CHEMENCHERY P.O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         PIN - 673304.
    2    P.T. HARIS
         AGED 50 YEARS, S/O ALI, HILAL MANZIL,
         CHEMANCHERY VILLAGE, THIRUVANGUR DESOM,
         CHEMENCHERY P.O, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
         PIN - 673304.
         BY ADVS.
         P.A.HARISH
         FIROZ K.M.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING
ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                      2

Review Petition No.353 of 2022 in
O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017


                               ORDER

Ajithkumar, J.

This review petition under Section 114, Order XLVII,

Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

1908, is filed by the 1st respondent in O.P.(RC) No.114 of

2017. He is aggrieved of the observation in the impugned

judgment that the Execution Court would decide whether

any re-delivery of the petition schedule building is required

or not, depending upon the decision in E.A.No.111 of 2017

in E.P.No.93 of 2015 in R.C.P.No.8 of 2009.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that actual

state of affairs of the building in question was brought to

the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of O.P.(RC)

No.114 of 2017, including by producing Exts.R1(a) and

R1(b) photographs, but without considering the state of the

building that it was not an inhabitable one, observed so in

the judgment. It is her contention that the said

observations will adversely affect the case of the petitioner

Review Petition No.353 of 2022 in O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017

before the court below.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing respondents.

4. E.A.No.111 of 2017 in E.P.No.93 of 2015 in

R.C.P.No.8 of 2009 was a petition filed by the 1 st

respondent seeking to condone lapse occurred on her part

in depositing the balance amount of arrears of rent. As

per the impugned judgment, the Execution Court was

directed to reconsider and decide afresh E.A.No.111 of

2017. While deciding the said question, reference to the

state of building in question was unnecessary. The

contention of the petitioner that the building is dilapidated

and practically not in existence is a matter to be agitated

before the court concerned, if the question of re-delivery

arises. We only had stated the position of law in the

statement to which the petitioner took exception. In the

said circumstances, we find no error in the judgment

impugned in this petition. The petition for review is

Review Petition No.353 of 2022 in O.P.(RC) No.114 of 2017

accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr