Kerala High Court
Satheesh vs Suresh on 1 November, 2024
2024:KER:81225
RP No.970 of 24
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1946
RP NO. 970 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN Ex.FA NO.24 OF 2023 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
SATHEESH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O LATE PADINJAROOT KUTTAPPAN MANAKKODI VILLAGE,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680012
BY ADV SATHEESH(Party-In-Person)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SURESH
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O PADINJAROOT KUTTAPPAN VENKILIPPADAM , VELLUTHOOR
VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680012
2 SINDHU
W/O PADINJAROOT JAYAPRAKASHAN, KIZHAKKUMPURAM DESOM,
MANAKKODI VILLAGE, THRISSUR., PIN - 680012
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI T.M CHANDRAN,RES
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81225
RP No.970 of 24
2
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 01st day of November, 2024)
The judgment dated 19.07.2024 of this Court in Execution
First Appeal No. 24/2023 is challenged in this review petition
by the petitioner.
2. The aforesaid judgment was rendered in an
appeal filed against the dismissal of E.A No. 452/2023
in E.P.No.137/2010 in O.S.No.658/1988 of the Additional
Sub Court-II, Thrissur. In E.A No. 452/2023, the petitioner
objected the delivery of the decree schedule property in
O.S.No.658/1988. All the contentions raised by the petitioner
in the aforesaid application were taken into account by the
learned Sub Judge while passing the impugned order dated
16.09.2023 dismissing the said application.
3. In the appeal filed before this Court as Execution of
First Appeal No. 24/2023, the challenge raised by the
petitioner herein, in EA No. 452/2023 before the Sub Court
Thrissur as well as all incidental aspects, were taken into
account and a detailed judgment was rendered on
19.07.2024. Now that in the present review petition, the
2024:KER:81225
petitioner would contend that the identity of decree scheduled
property is in dispute and that the decree under challenge is
not executable at all. Another contention raised in this review
petition is that, in view of the principle of doctrine of
promissory estoppel, the decree holder was not entitled to get
delivery of decree schedule property. The review petitioner
has also re-agitated the issue regarding the limitation which
was found against him by this Court in the judgment dated
19.07.2024. It is also pointed out by the review petitioner that,
he had not taken any contention in the appeal that the decree
scheduled property cannot be taken possession due to the
injunction decree prevailing over the pathway in O.S.
No.2399/1998.
4 Heard the review petitioner who appeared in person
and the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. Identity of the decree schedule property and
executability of the decree cannot be raised by the petitioner
in this review petition, since the above matters are already
adjudicated by this Court as well as the Sub Court Thrissur,
which had dealt with execution matter, and the finding has
2024:KER:81225
reached finality. So also, the petitioner cannot challenge the
findings of this Court in the judgment dated 19.07.2024 on the
issue of limitation in a review petition like the present one.
6. As regards the contention of promissory estoppel put
forward for the first time in this review petition, it is to be
stated that the challenge in the above regard cannot be
entertained at this stage. The contention of the review
petitioner that he did not raise a challenge that the decree
schedule property cannot be taken possession due to the
injunction decree in O.S.No.2399/1998, is also untenable since
it could be seen from the impugned order of the Sub Court
dated 16.09.2023 as well as from the case records that, an
issue in the above record was actively agitated by the
petitioner before the court below.
7. It appears that the review petitioner has challenged
the judgment dated 19.07.2024 of this Court as if it is an
appeal against the findings on facts and law. There is
absolutely no error apparent on the face of the record
warranting a review of the said judgment. So also, new
aspects which the petitioner ought to have raised with due
2024:KER:81225
diligence before the Sub Court, cannot be put forward at this
stage by way of a review petition. If the petitioner was
aggrieved by any of the findings of this Court in the appeal, on
factual aspects or on legal basis, he ought to have challenged
the judgment in appeal before the appropriate forum. At any
rate, review petition like the one which is filed now is prima
facie not maintainable.
In the result, the review petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
SM
