IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 RP.NO. 809 OF 2011() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OPC.1447/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------------ 1. DAISY JOSEPH, PARAMBIL HOUSE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, PIN 686 507. 2. MARIA JOSEPH,PARAMBIL HOUSE KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, PIN 686 507. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. C.K.JACOB,MANAGING PARTNER CHAKIAT FINANCING COMPANY, CHAKIAT HOUSE,KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, PIN 686 693. 2. C.K.PETER,PARTNER, CHAKIAT FINANCING COMPANY, CHAKIAT HOUSE,KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, PIN 686 693. 3. JOSEPH CHACKO, PARAKKAL KUTTIKATU HOUSE,THALOKOTTUKKARA, CHERNELUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 682 034. 4. S.R.UGENE,PARAKKAL KUTTIKATTU HOUSE, THALAKOTTUKKARA, CHERNELLUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 682 034. 5. S.R.ANNIE JAMES, PARAKKAL KUTTIKATTU HOUSE, THALAKOTTUKKARA, CHERANELLUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 682 034. 6. S.R.PHILO JAMES, PARAKKAL KUTTIKATTU HOUSE, THALAKOTTUKKARA, CHERANELLUR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, PIN 682 034. ADV. SMT.M.M.FATHIMA JALEENA FOR ADDL.R7&8 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P. NO.809 OF 2011 IN O.P(C) NO.1447 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ANX.I TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 445/2008 IN I.P. 4/2000 OF INSOLVENCY (HON'BLE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT), MUVATTUPUZHA. ANX.II TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN I.A. NO.440/09 IN I.A. NO.394/09. ANX.III TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-3-2009 IN I.A. 394/09 IN I.A. 445/08 IN I.P.4/2000 OF THE INSOLVENCY COURT BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.809 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.1447 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 O R D E R This petition is for review of judgment dated 22.08.2011 in O.P(C) No.1447 of 2011. Respondents 5 and 6 in the Original Petition have sought review of judgment in the Original petition. Grievance of petitioners is that fact of Annexure-III, order (produced along with the review petition) was not brought to the notice of this Court while passing the judgment sought to be reviewed. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that in the light of Annexure-III, order, judgment of this Court is liable to be reviewed as there is an error apparent on the face of record. 2. I have heard learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 as well who opposed the request. According to the learned counsel there is no reason to order a review. 3. A review applying the principle laid down in Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the of the Code Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) is permissible when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or other circumstances as referred to therein. If the judgment under challenge can be sustained on any one ground, R.P. No.809 of 2011 in O.P(C) No.1447 of 2011 -: 2 :- merely for the reason that another ground which supported the judgment amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record need not result in review of the judgment. 4. Judgment in O.P(C) No.1447 of 2011 was not passed based on Annexure-III order, nor any application which led to the passing of Annexure-III, order. In other words judgment of this Court has independent existence notwithstanding Annexure-III, order. I must also bear in mind that by the judgment sought to be reviewed the court below was directed to dispose of Ext.P2, application in the Original Petition as early as possible and the interim stay granted by this Court was extended until disposal of Ext.P2, application. That is independent of Annexure-III, order. Hence existence of Annexure-III, order even if not brought to the notice of the this Court while disposing of the Original Petition is no ground to review the judgment. In that view of the matter I find no reason to review the judgment in O.P(C) No.1447 of 2011. Review Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv