IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 CRP.No. 880 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2008 IN I.A.NO.6631/2008 IN OS.519/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY, S/O. PADINJARE NADAKKAVU, VADAKKAN DEVASSY, CHIRAKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- RAPPAI @ PAHEAL, KATGARA HOUSE, IST FLOOR, FLAT NO.6, 91 MINT ROAD, FORT BOMBAY. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` C.R.P. No. 880 OF 2008 ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner in the revision is the defendant in OS.519/99 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit was one for partition. In the above suit, after getting a report from an Advocate Commissioner with respect to mesne profits to be paid by the defendant and also other matters a final decree was passed. Pursuant to that final decree, there was an appeal and a second appeal, and the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. The present petitioner/ defendant challenged the matter further before the apex court in which a contention was also raised that in the final decree passed, there was some mistake as to the calculation of mesne profits, which was contended as not in consonance with the report of the Commissioner which had been accepted. The apex court disposed of the Special Leave Petition directing the party to approach the court below. The petitioner thereupon moved an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for correcting the mistake, which is stated to have occurred CRP.880/08 : 2 : with reference to the calculation of mesne profits. The court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application for review. The revision is filed impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel sought permission for withdrawing the revision since the review application ought to have been filed before the court, which disposed the second appeal, as already a merger of the decrees had taken place. A further request was also made to provide a grace period to the petitioner on condition of his depositing the amount calculated towards the mesne profits before the executing court to avoid proceedings against his property over which a charge had been created for the amount assessed towards mesne profits. Having regard to the submissions made and the facts and circumstances presented, I find this is a fit case where permission has to be granted for withdrawal with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief in the appropriate forum as provided by law. The revision is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief from the appropriate court. CRP.880/08 : 3 : The execution court is also directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings against the property of the petitioner towards realisation of the sum awarded as mesne profit in the decree for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner to deposit the sum calculated towards mesne profits before the court below within one month as undertaken, for extending him the grace period as above to prefer application for the relief canvassed in the revision before the appropriate forum. Send a copy of the order to the court below and handover copy to the counsel on both sides on usual terms. Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. to Judge