IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1286 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.750/2008 Dated 30/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER ---------------------- KUMARA PILLAI SUDHAKARAN, KAKKARA THACHANVILA VEEDU, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODU VILLAGE BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NARAYANAN PILLAI VELAPPAN NAIR UPPUTHANATHU VADAKKE VEEDU AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODU VILLAGE 2. PANKAJAKSHY AMMA, OMANA AMMA OF DO.O. 3. RAJENDRANKURUPPU RAJASEKHARAN, OMANA MANDIRAM, AYIRAYIL DESOM, PARASSALA, KANODE VILLAGE. 4. RAJENDRAKURUPPU RAJESH OF DO.O. 5. RAJAMMA RAJITHA OF DO.DO. R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 -2- 6. PANKAJAKSHI AMMA SUKUMARI AMMA BINDHU BHAVAN, PLANKALAMUKKU MOOLAKONAM, NEMOM FROM UPPUTHANATHU VADAKKE VEEDU AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE. 7. KUMARA PILLAI, MADHAVAN NAIR KAKKARA THACHANVILA VEEDU, AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODE VILLAGE. 8. MAHEASWARAN NAIR, S/O.KUMARA PILLAI OF DO,DO. 9. KUMARA PILLAI, RAJAN OF DO. 10. KARTHIYANI PILLAI, THANKAMMA OF DO.DO. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR,J. ................................................... R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 750 of 2008 .................................................... DATED: 10-12-2008 ORDER This Review Petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-10-2008 delivered by this Court in R.S.A. 750 of 2008 as per which this Court answering the question of law held that an application for passing the final decree was not barred by Art. 137 of the Limitation or any other provisions of law since it was the legal obligation of the court to pass a final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree. The decision reported in Achaldas Durgaji Oswal v. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda -(2003) 3 SCC 614 and (1993) 4 SCC 431 – K. Parameswaran Pillai v. K. Sumathi @ Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and Another relied on by the review petitioner have no application to the facts of this case. Those are cases which related to the belated deposit of the mortgage money. It was under those circumstances that the court held that that the application was barred by limitation. R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 750 of 2008 -:2:- That is not the position here. Even the questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal were the following:- i) Is there any law or provision therein, enabling the Respondents/plaintiff to file second application for passing final decree after the expiry of the period of limitation ? ii) Is it proper and correct to pass final decree on the second application filed by the same party for the same purpose, since it was hit res judicata as provided by law ? iii) Whether the findings of the Courts below to come to a conclusion that a dismissed application for final decree can be treated as a continuation for the present application for passing final decree ? It was the aforesaid questions which were answered by this Court while disposing of the R.S.A. I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of record to entertain this review petition. This Review Petition is accordingly dismissed. Dated this 10th day of December 2008. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE ani R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 750 of 2008 -:3:-