Kerala High Court
M/S. Franciscan Missionary ... vs Power Grid Corporation Of India on 13 September, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
RP NO. 921 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2022 IN OP(C) 2072/2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M/S. FRANCISCAN MISSIONARY BROTHERS
REGISTERED UNDER TC ACT 12 OF 1955
REPRESENTED BY REV. BROTHER PETER VAZHAPARAMBIL,
AGED 57 YEARS, SUPERIOR AND DIRECTOR,
ASSISI SNEHA SADHAN ASHRAMAM (CALVERY ASHRAMAM),
PANNAVALLI P.O, THIRUNELLI VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
AREEKODE, UGRAPURAM P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2023, ALONG WITH RP.920/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P. Nos.921 and 920 of 2022
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 22ND BHADRA, 1945
RP NO. 920 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2022 IN OP(C) 2075/2021 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
M/S. FRANCISCAN MISSIONARY BROTHERS
REGISTERED UNDER TC ACT 12 OF 1955
REPRESENTED BY REV. BROTHER PETER VAZHAPARAMBIL,
AGED 57 YEARS, SUPERIOR AND DIRECTOR,
ASSISI SNEHA SADHAN ASHRAMAM (CALVERY ASHRAMAM),
PANNAVALLI P.O, THIRUNELLI VILLAGE,
MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 670645
BY ADVS.
R.S.KALKURA
P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
AREEKODE, UGRAPURAM P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676639
BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2023,
ALONG WITH RP.921/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
R.P. Nos.921 and 920 of 2022
3
C. S. DIAS, J.
-------------------------
R.P. Nos.921 & 920 of 2022
-------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2023
COMMON ORDER
The review petitions are filed to review the
common judgment passed by this Court in the
original petitions.
2. The review petitioner's common case is
that, they had filed the original petitions
challenging the orders passed by the Court of the
District Judge, Kalpetta in O.P.(Ele.) Nos.8/2011
and 213/2009. This Court had, by its judgment in
O.P.C. No.1229/2020, set aside a similar order
passed by the court below in O.P.(Ele.)
No.76/2010. Following the said judgment, this
Court was inclined to allow the original petitions
and set aside the orders passed in O.P.(Ele.)
R.P. Nos.921 and 920 of 2022
Nos.8/2011 and 213/2009. However, in clause
(vii) of the operative portion of the impugned
common judgment, this Court had held that in
the eventuality of the original petitions being
allowed by the court below, the petitioner would
be dis-entitled for interest on the enhanced
compensation for the period from 13.01.2015 till
03.08.2022 (that is the date on which the original
petitions were originally dismissed by the Court
below and the date on which the impugned
common judgment was passed by this Court). The
petitioner asserts that clause (vii) in the
impugned common judgment is onerous and
unreasonable, which is an error apparent on the
face of the judgment and the same warrants to be
reviewed by this Court. Hence, the review
petitions.
3. Heard; Sri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
R.P. Nos.921 and 920 of 2022
Sri.Milllu Dandapani, the learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
4. It is an undisputed fact that the review
petitioner had decided to abandon the two
original petitions before the court below, by filing
not press memos. Consequently, the court below
dismissed both the original petitions on
13.01.2015 as not pressed.
5. Admittedly, the review petitioner
challenged the said dismissal orders passed by
the court below only on 27.10.2021 before this
Court.
6. The act of the review petitioner in filing
the not press memos clearly falls within the term
of abandonment of the cases under Order XXIII
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. Later, this Court, following its earlier
judgment in O.P.(C.) No.1229/2020, took a lenient
view in the matter and set aside the impugned
R.P. Nos.921 and 920 of 2022
orders passed by the court below finding the
same to be in violation of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Power Grid
Corporation of India v. Century Textiles and
Industries Ltd. [2017 (5) SCC 143]. However, this
Court had consciously dis-entitled the petitioner
from getting interest on the enhanced
compensation, if it was to be allowed by the court
below, for the period from 13.01.2015 till
03.08.2022, because it was the petitioner's own
decision to abandon the original petitions before
the court below by filing the not press memos.
Although the impugned orders were passed by
the court below on 13.01.2015 and the law was
crystallized on the point by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the petitioner chose to challenge the
orders only on 27.10.2021, that is nearly after
seven years after the original petitions were
dismissed by the court below. It is in the above
R.P. Nos.921 and 920 of 2022
background, this Court ordered that the
petitioner would be dis-entitled for interest for
the above period, otherwise it would cause great
prejudice and pecuniary loss to the respondent,
that too for no fault of theirs.
In view of the above reason, I do not find any
error apparent on the face of the judgment
warranting it to be reviewed. The review
petitions are devoid of any merits and are
consequentially, dismissed.
Sd/-
C. S. DIAS
JUDGE
SKP/13-09
