IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.NO. 557 OF 2009(F) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.28825/2004 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------------- P.T.RAMAKRISHNAN, KAITHERI VEEDU, URALLOOR AMSOM, ARIKKULAM DESOM, KOYILANDI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- PALOTT NARAYANAN, KARAYAD AMSOM, THIRUVANGAYOOR DESOM. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO.557 of 2009 IN W.P(C) NO.28825 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. This petition is filed to review the judgment dated 23.10.2008 in W.P(C) No.28825 of 2004. Petitioner in that proceeding challenged the sale proclamation in respect of his property on the ground that before issuing sale proclamation, executing court did not decide whether the entire property is required to be sold for realisation of the decreed debt. At the time of hearing the Writ Petition it was brought to the notice of this Court that the property had already been sold in the executing court on 19.7.2004 for a total sum of Rs.30,100/- and that the sale was confirmed by order dated 27.9.2004. Accordingly the Writ Petition was closed as infructuous without prejudice to other rights of the petitioner, if any. 3. Petitioner has now come up in review stating that as per the decision of the Apex Court in Ambati Narasayya v. M. Subba Rao (AIR 1990 SC 119) it was the duty of the executing court to decide whether sale of the entire property is required for R.P. No.557 of 2009 in W.P(C) No.28825 of 2004 -: 2 :- realisation of the decree debt. That was not done in this case and hence entire proceedings taken subsequent to the sale proclamation is vitiated and invalid. Petitioner therefore seeks review of the judgment of this Court, dated 23.10.2008. 4. In this petition limited question is whether the review sought is to be allowed. Question of review arises only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced in spite of exercise of due diligence. The Writ Petition was decided on merits and it was closed as infructuous without prejudice to other rights of the petitioner if any. What is urged in the review is the same ground which was raised in the Writ Petition. No new matter is raised. A wrong order of judgment cannot be upset by recourse to the provision for review. Review is not a substitute for an appeal. Nor is it an opportunity for a rehearing of the case already disposed of. There is no error apparent on the face of the record so far as the disposal of the above Writ Petition is concerned. If that be so, review sought for cannot be allowed. While closing the Writ Petition as infructuous I had observed that disposal of the Writ Petition is without prejudice to the R.P. No.557 of 2009 in W.P(C) No.28825 of 2004 -: 3 :- other rights, if any of petitioner. With that observation review petition is dismissed. Interlocutory Application No.268 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL. R.P. NO. OF 2000 =================== O R D E R JUNE, 2009