Kerala High Court
Joe Mathew vs Vishnu Priya on 2 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
RP NO. 625 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2024 IN OP(C) NO.625 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
JOE MATHEW
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. T.J.MATHAI, THEKKENATH HOUSE, THOUNDAYIL ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682036
BY ADVS.
K.R.VINOD
M.S.LETHA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/7TH DEFENDANT:
VISHNU PRIYA
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.SIVAN, PAZHANGADAN HOUSE, C.P. UMMER ROAD,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682035
BY ADV. K.V.RASHMI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No. 625 of 2024 in O.P.(C)No.625 of 2024
..2..
O R D E R
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
The petitioner, who was the respondent in
O.P(C)No.625/2024, seeks review of the judgment of
this Court, in the said Original Petition dated
12.03.2024. The ground under which review is
sought for, is two fold. Firstly, that the
petitioner (the sole respondent in the Original
Petition) was not heard before rendering the
judgment and secondly, it was misrepresented
before this Court by the petitioner in the
Original Petition that, Ext.P3 is an application
preferred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (C.P.C.). As a matter of fact, Ext.P3 is
only an objection to the commission application
preferred by the review petitioner herein,
wherein, a contention inter alia based on Section
10 of the C.P.C. was also taken. If this fact was
R.P.No. 625 of 2024 in O.P.(C)No.625 of 2024
..3..
properly brought to the notice of this Court, the
judgment sought to be reviewed would not have been
passed, is the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that, the respondent is quite within the
liberty of law to point out a contention based on
Section 10 of the C.P.C., even in a counter
affidavit preferred against the commission
application.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the respective parties, this Court finds merit in
the contentions urged by the learned counsel for
the review petitioner. It is true that, this Court
has construed Ext.P3 as an application preferred
under Section 10 of the C.P.C., on which premise
only, this Court directed that the said
application has to be considered first, before
R.P.No. 625 of 2024 in O.P.(C)No.625 of 2024
..4..
considering the commission application. If as a
matter of fact, Ext.P3 is only an objection to the
commission application, wherein a contention based
on Section 10 of the C.P.C. is also canvassed, the
proposition that Ext.P3 application (infact it is
not an application) has to be considered first,
cannot be sustained.
4. The interest of justice of both the parties
can be served, if the judgment under review is
vacated and liberty is given to the trial court to
proceed with the Order passed in the commission
application, in accordance with law. However, it
is also observed that the respondent herein
(petitioner in the Original Petitioner), will be
at liberty to file necessary application under
Section 10 of the C.P.C., in case the respondent
is advised to do so. If such an application is
preferred, the learned Munsiff will consider such
application expeditiously, without any delay.
R.P.No. 625 of 2024 in O.P.(C)No.625 of 2024
..5..
With these observations, this review petition is
allowed, doing away with the judgment in
O.P(C)No.625/2024 dated 12.03.2024.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
TR
