IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 145 of 2011(O) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP(C) NO.164/2010 Dated 12/01/2011 REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER IN O.P.(C)NO.164/2010 ------------------------------------------------------ E.JACOB VARGHESE,AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO KOCHU CHACKO,ELANJIKAL HOUSE, THURUTHY.P.O,CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. E.JACOB VARGHESE(PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT IN O.P.(C) ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA-689503. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON 28/6/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Review Petition NO. 145 of 2011 in O.P.(C) No.164 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of June, 2011 O R D E R This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(C) No.164 of 2010 seeking to review the judgment dated 12.1.2011, by which, the Original Petition was dismissed in limine. 2. The petitioner appeared in person. 3. The Original Petition was filed against Exts.P11, P13 and P15 orders, by which, the executing court dismissed the Review Petitions filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 22.3.2008 passed by the executing court. 4. According to the petitioner, the judgment debtor is liable to pay more amounts by way of interest. The full amount was not paid. Still the executing court recorded full satisfaction. 5. The Original Petition was dismissed mainly on the REVIEW PETITION NO.145 OF 2011 :: 2 :: ground that the executing court found on an earlier occasion that the total sum due to the petitioner was `43,896/- and that order was not interfered with by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.20080 of 2008. Though the petitioner filed a Review Petition to review the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20080 of 2008, that Review Petition was also dismissed. 6. The petitioner submits that even after the executing court recorded full satisfaction by the order dated 22.3.2008, the judgment debtor deposited amounts payable to the petitioner in the Land Acquisition References. According to the petitioner, this would indicate that the full amount due to the petitioner was not paid. The petitioner relies on Annexure A1 series of documents to show that on 12.8.2010 a sum of `1,002/- was deposited by the judgment debtor, payable to the petitioner, and that amount was withdrawn by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court while the Original Petition was taken up for hearing. 7. The petitioner has a grievance that full amount due to him was not paid. It is true that the executing court found that REVIEW PETITION NO.145 OF 2011 :: 3 :: `43,896/- was due to the petitioner and that order was not interfered with by this Court. A question arises as to why the judgment debtor deposited more amounts even in 2010 towards the decree debt. This requires consideration. If there is an error and due to the error the petitioner has lost the amount due to him, the matter requires reconsideration. The Original Petition was dismissed at the admission stage. I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed and the judgment dated 12.1.2011 is recalled. The Original Petition shall be taken up for admission. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/