IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 FAO.No. 354 of 2010() --------------------- I.A.NO.772/10 IN OS.125/2008 of SUB COURT, PALA .................... APPELLANT/COUNTER PETITIONER/DEFENDANTS NO.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHAMSUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, THOTTATHIL,KANJIRAPPALLY PO, KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM RESPONDENT(S): PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER PETITIONERS 2 & 3 DEFENDANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SEBASTIAN,S/O.MATHEW, MADUKKAKUZHY HOUSE,THAMBALAKADU P.O, KANJIRAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK-686 506. 2. AJIKUMAR P.S. S/O.SREEGHARAN, THADIPLAKIL(ATHALLI) HOUSE, ETTUMNOOE PO,KIZHAKKUM BHAGOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE-686 631. 3. BABU MATHEW, BENZ VILLA MUTTUCHIRA PO,KADUTHURUTHY,686 613. R1 BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY R2, R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- F.A.O.No.354 OF 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.This appeal is against an order passed in the course of a suit for money. 2.The appellant sold a car to the plaintiff. Later, that car was seen to be a stolen article and was given in interim custody to another person by the jurisdictional criminal court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the plaintiff suing for return of the consideration paid for that sale, appellant held himself out as a bonafide purchaser under lawful documents, including transfer of registration. On his application, two supplemental defendants were impleaded on 26.3.2009. They, in turn, applied for impleadment of their vendors on plea similar to that of the appellant. Thereupon, the plaintiff applied for review of the order dated 26.3.2009 impleading supplemental defendants 2 and 3. The court below allowed it. Hence this appeal. FAO.354/10 2 3.In Saraswathi Amma v. Chandrasekaharan Nair [2009 (4) KLT 85], this Court held that an appeal against any order allowing review is entertainable only if the order passed on the review application has re-determined the rights of parties and also only if the order reviewed is an appealable one. In the case in hand, no rights of parties are determined, either as per the order for impleadment or as per the order reviewing the order for impleadment. Following that precedent, this appeal is, therefore, not maintainable. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable and without prejudice to other remedies. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, Judge. kkb.