IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 963 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN FAO.100/2008 Dated 03/10/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- P.N. KRISHNA PILLAI, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 73, SECRETARY, SHREE VIDYADHI RAJA VIDYA SAMAJAM TRUST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, ALUMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.SATHIQ SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN SMT. M.A. ZOHARA RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. SHREE VIDYADHI RAJA SAMAJAM TRUST, A CHARITABLE SOCIETY, REGISTERED UNDER THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN LITERARY SCIENTIFIC AND CHARITABLE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1955 HAVING HEAD OFFICE AT EAST ALUMMOORU BUNGLOW, CHETTIKULANGARA, TVM. 2. DR. T.P. SANKARAN KUTTY, S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, AGED 57, ALLEGED TO BE THE SECRETARY OF IST RESPONDENT SAMAJAM, RESIDING AT GANGA BHAVAN (TC 26/1910) G.P.O. LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SANTHAN V. NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN & K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No. 963 OF 2009 IN F.A.O. No. 100 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010. O R D E R Sankaran, J F.A.O.100/08 was disposed of by the judgment dated 3rd October, 2008. That judgment is sought to be reviewed at the instance of the respondent in the appeal. 2. There were several litigations between the parties. The dispute was with respect to a charitable society. An educational institution was being run by the society. In the nature of the dispute involved in the case, the Division Bench thought that the matter could be settled between the parties and that it would be ideal if the matter was settled between the parties. The parties were directed to appear and an R.P. No. 963 OF 2009 IN F.A.O. No. 100 OF 2008 -:2:- advocate was appointed as Mediator on consent. After several rounds of talks between the parties with the help of the Mediator, an affidavit dated 2.10.08 sworn to by the review petitioner was filed in the appeal. When the appeal was taken up for hearing and when the affidavit was taken note of, the review petitioner was present in Court. The judgment dated 3rd October, 2008 was passed on an agreement between the parties. 3. In the review petition, the revision petitioner has stated as follows: “The respondents in collusion with their counsel and certain anti- social elements coerced and threatened the Review Petitioner to sign in a pre-prepared affidavit by them wherein self destructive statements against the R.P. No. 963 OF 2009 IN F.A.O. No. 100 OF 2008 -:3:- interest of the review petitioner were stated. The Review Petitioner signed the said affidavit without free consent but out of fear to his life and life of his family members.” 4. It is also stated that after the disposal of FAO 100/08, the sub Court passed a judgment and decree on 4.11.08. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that a review petition was filed by the present review petitioner to review the judgment and decree passed by the Court below on 4.11.08 and that review petition is pending. 5. Paragraph 5 of the review petition also would indicate that the review petitioner had even filed a complaint against the counsel appearing for the opposite side before the Bar Council of Kerala. Learned counsel for the R.P. No. 963 OF 2009 IN F.A.O. No. 100 OF 2008 -:4:- review petitioner submitted that the complaint filed before the Bar Council was later withdrawn. 6. In respect of the averments in paragraph 2 of the review petition, there is no material before us to show that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated by fraud. The judgment was based on consent and that consent was arrived at on the basis of several rounds of talk between the parties with the assistance of the Mediator appointed by the Court. The parties, counsel as well as the Mediator spent several hours to arrive at a consensus between the parties and that consensus was reflected in the judgment passed by the Division Bench. 7. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that no R.P. No. 963 OF 2009 IN F.A.O. No. 100 OF 2008 -:5:- grounds are made out to review the judgment dated 3rd October, 2008. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. The judgment was not based on an adjudication of the dispute involved in the case. On the other hand, it was on the basis of a consensus between the parties. Only the review petitioner has resiled from the consensus. The other parties have not withdrawn from the terms of the consensus arrived at between the parties. For the aforesaid reasons, the review petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. ul/-