IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 240 of 2011() -------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN RSA.417/2010) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANTS ---------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY PHILIP, W/O.PHILIP, MANPALLIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., (SOUTH), KIDANGOOR VILLAGE. 2. JOSE PHILIP, S/O.PHILIP, MAMPALLIL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., (SOUTH), KIDANGOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BIJU J.JOHN, S/O.JOHN, MANAGING PARTNER, ORIANT TRAVAL AND CONSULTANT, NIRAVATH BUILDING, KIDANGOOR P.O. - 686572. 2. M.P.JOSE, S/O.PUNNOOSE, MAVELI HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P.O., KIDANGOOR VILLAGE., PIN 686572. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: vk P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------------- RP No.240 of 2011 in RSA No.417 of 2010-G ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2011 Order This Review Petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.04.2010 in RSA No.417/10 whereby this court dismissed the appeal, confirming the concurrent findings by the courts below against the review petitioner. 2. It appears that the petitioner had entrusted money with the respondents for purchase of an air ticket to USA through Kuwait Airways between 01.07.2001 to 04.07.2001. The respondents were unable to procure ticket on those dates and they informed the plaintiffs that they could arrange ticket through some other airlines. The plaintiffs did not want to travel by any other airlines. Probably, the reason being that the plaintiff, being an old lady, wanted to go along with her relatives, who were travelling by Kuwait Airways for attending the marriage of one of their relatives. Whatever that be, the defendants RP 240/11 2 informed the plaintiffs that it was not possible for them to get the ticket through Kuwait Airways. On the allegation that the defendants had committed breach of contract in consequence of which the first plaintiff had to suffer damages, the suit was laid. 3. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration and it was found that there was no contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants of which the plaintiffs could complain breach. There was only a promise on the part of the defendants that they would try to procure tickets on the dates specified by the plaintiffs on a particular airline. The trial court also found that there is no agreement or contract between the parties and there was only a promise to make an attempt to get tickets through the airline specified by the plaintiffs on any specified dates. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. The matter was carried in appeal and the lower appellate court concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal. In second appeal, this court reconsidered the entire evidence on RP 240/11 3 record and found that the courts below have not erred in any manner in reaching their conclusions. 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioners pointed out that the respondents could not procure tickets by Kuwait Airways and they informed them that they may arrange tickets through some other airline, which shows that there was an implied contract between the parties. This court has omitted to notice the said fact and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice and so, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 5. At the outset itself, it has to be said that this court is sitting in second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the scope of which is considerably limited. Unless it is shown that the findings of the courts below are either perverse or unjustified or unwarranted by the evidence on record, interference under Section 100 CPC is not called for. Apart from the above fact, this court has considered the entire materials on record and has found that there was no contract between the parties. Merely because certain RP 240/11 4 money was entrusted with the defendants and they had promised to get air ticket through Kuwait Airways, does not result in a contract. The travel agency had only promised that they would try to get tickets through a particular airline on the dates specified by the plaintiffs and there was no contract as such. Merely because some money is received and there was a promise on the part of the defendants that they would try to procure tickets, does not result either in an express or implied contract. Further, the defendants had informed the plaintiffs that due to heavy rush, they were unable to procure tickets through Kuwait Airways and had offered to get the ticket of some other airways, which the plaintiffs did not want. It was based on these facts that the courts below found that there was no contract between the parties and that the defendants had only promised to procure ticket. This court, on a reconsideration of the evidence, found that the findings of the courts below are fully justified and it was on that premise that the second appeal was dismissed. RP 240/11 5 In view of the above, the review petition is misconceived and it is without any merits. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, no interference by this court is called for with the judgment under review. The RP is accordingly dismissed. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta RP 240/11 6