IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1206 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.608/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT Nos. 1&2 --------------------------------- 1. V.C.BALACHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, KOORAKANCHERY VILLAGE & DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SATHI NARAYANAN, S/O.MUTTICHUR NARAYANAN, CHENTRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI. P.C. GOPINATH SMT. PRIYA RAMESH RESPONDENT(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 3 -------------------------------- 1. MANUELSONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD THRISSUR - 1. 2. LAHAR, S/O.MUTTICHUR NARAYANAN, CHENTRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P.No. 1206 OF 2008 IN C.R.P.No. 608 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 ORDER This review petition is preferred to review the Order in C.R.P.No. 608/06 dated 13.12.2007 of this Court on the ground that the Civil Revision Petition was disposed of without hearing them and the order passed requires interference. I had perused the order passed by me in 13.12.2007. On relying on the dictum laid down by a division bench of this Court in Dhanalakshmi Bank Ltd. v. Divakaran [2000(2) KLT 231], this Court took the view that in an execution for sale of the property on a mortgaged decree, unless specification is given by the court which passed the decree regarding the extent to be sold, the executing court will not have any power to reduce the extent and order for sale. Now it is contended that a later Division Bench of this Court had held otherwise. The learned counsel had referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Kuruvilla v. Corporation Bank [2008(1) KLT 604]. It was a case where a charge was created on the property and decree was passed. So it was for the R.P.No. 1206/08 IN CRP No. 608/06 -2- sale of the property, the execution petition was filed. The difference in a mortgaged decree as held by the Division Bench earlier is that it attains finality when it passes a final decree. When the court had exercised its mind and held what is the property to be sold, an executing court cannot reduce that and ask for a sale of lesser extent of the property. Therefore the case referred to will not come to the rescue of the revision petitioner. I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record or any other reason to review the judgment passed by me earlier. The Review Petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm