Unathil Ravi vs Unathil Krishnan
2023 Latest Caselaw 11797 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
   THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1945
                         RP NO. 540 OF 2023
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 466/2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT

            UNATHIL RAVI
            AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O. CHATHU ANTHITHIRIYAN, KOROM AMSOM DESOM,
            TALIPARAMBA TALUK, CHALAKODE P.O.,
            KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307

            BY ADVS.
            M.SASINDRAN
            SATHEESHAN ALAKKADAN



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF:

            UNATHIL KRISHNAN
            AGED 59 YEARS
            S/O. CHATHU ANTHITHIRIYAN KOROM AMSOM DESOM,
            TALIPARAMBA TALUK, CHALAKODE P.O.,
            KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670307

            BY ADV MATHEW KURIAKOSE




     THIS   REVIEW   PETITION   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
16.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 R.P. NO.540 OF 2023       2




         Dated this the 16th day of November, 2023

                           ORDER

The review petition is filed to recall the judgment

passed in the original petition.

2. The review petitioner has averred in the

memorandum of the review petition that, this Court, by

judgment dated 17.1.2023, had allowed the original

petition by setting aside Ext.P4 order and dismissing

Ext.P2 application. By an inadvertent omission, the

review petitioner had failed to inform his counsel before

this Court that during the pendency of the original

petition, the review petitioner had on the basis of Ext.P4

order executed Annexure A1 conveyance deed through

the process of the Court of the Munsiff, Payyannur, and,

thereafter, he and his wife had transferred the property

to a third party by Annexure AII conveyance deed. This

was done because there was no interim order in force in

the original petition during the relevant period. It is

without bringing the said aspect to the notice of this

court, the judgment was passed. Actually, the original

petition had turned infructuous on the date of passing of

the judgment. Now, if the judgment is enforced, it would

cause severe hardship and prejudice to the review

petitioner. Moreover, since Annexure A1 has been

executed, on the basis of Ext.P4 order, it would be an

empty formality to again relegate the review petitioner

and enforce the order by filing another application under

Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, there is

an error apparent on the face of the record of the

judgment, which warrants to be recalled. Hence, the

review petition.

3. Heard; Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel

appearing for the review petitioner and

Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent.

4. This Court by judgment dated 17.1.2023 had set

aside Ext.P4 order passed by the court below and

dismissed Ext.P2 application, which was filed under

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act. However, this Court

reserved the right of the review petitioner to work out his

remedies in accordance with law to execute the decree

passed in O.S.No.139/2010.

5. At the time of hearing the original petition, the

fact that Ext.P4 order was enforced through the court

below, while the interim order was not in force, was not

brought to the notice of this Court.

6. It is evident from Annexure A1 that the document

was executed through the process of the court below

prior to passing of the impugned judgment.

7. It is also discernible that subsequent to Annexure

AI, the review petitioner and his wife have sold the

property to a third party as per Annexure AII document.

These facts were not brought to the notice of this Court.

8. On a consideration of the facts stated above, I am

of the definite view that, on the date of considering the

original petition, the original petition has turned

infructuous, as there was no interim order in force. Thus,

the impugned judgment warrants to be reviewed.

In the result:

(i) The review petition is allowed; and

(ii) The impugned judgment in O.P(C) No.466/2014 is

recalled.

SD/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm16/11/2023

APPENDIX OF RP 540/2023

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure AI TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT DATED 08.10.2022 OF SRO PAYYANNUR, EXECUTED BY THE MUNSIFF; MUNSIFF'S COURT, PAYYANNUR ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

Annexure AII TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.540/2023 OF SRO, PAYYANNUR EXECUTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER AND HIS WIFE IN FAVOUR OF M.PAVITHRAN