IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 345 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.299/2010 Dated 08/02/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/DEFENDANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/S.BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., E.R.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031, REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:PLAINTIFF: ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUHARA, D/O.V.K.KOCHU MUHAMMED, W/O.ARACKAL MOHAMMED, SADHIQUE GARDENS, PURANGU P.O., (VIS) KANJIRAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 584. BY ADV. SRI. K.C.CHARLES THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S.Satheesachandran, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- CMA.No.445/2011 & R.P. No.345/2011 in RSA No.299 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this, the 16th day of June, 2011 ORDER The review petition is filed with a petition to condone the delay of 53 days seeking review of the judgment rendered by this Court dismissing the appeal. The appellant, a public sector undertaking, is the review petitioner. From the submissions made by the learned counsel, it appears, that the review petition has been filed on the premise that some observations have been made in the judgment in respect of the right of the appellant to set up a claim under Section 106 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , precluding him from setting up such right hereafter. Irrespective of the decision rendered in the case, the appellant feels that it can still maintain a claim under Section 106 of the said Act. So much so, a review of the judgment at least to the extent as indicated above is canvassed for. Though such review has been sought belatedly, indulgence of the court is sought, for condoning the delay as well. R.P.345/11 & CMA 445/11 2 2. Strongly opposing the delay petition and also the review petition, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that delivery of the suit property is posted tomorrow and, at this stage, the review petition has been filed belatedly only to prevent the decree holder from enjoying the fruits of the decree. It is further submitted that the decree holder is a cancer patient and her lawful right to recover possession of the property resisted so far by the untenable contentions raised by the appellant had already been repelled by the court below, and also this Court under the judgment sought to be reviewed. Learned counsel presses for dismissal of the applications. 3. Perusing the review petition with reference to the judgment rendered, it is seen that this Court has not expressed any opinion over the claim of the appellant, as under Section 106 of the KLR Act. Truly, in paragraph 2 of the judgment, reference was made to the judgment impugned before this Court under Section 106 of the KLR Act wherein the observations of the court below in its judgment were referred to. The appeal, in fact, had been admitted only on the substantial question of law, unconnected with the above claim raised, for consideration, which alone is permissible in view of R.P.345/11 & CMA 445/11 3 the interdictions placed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. No finding, leave alone any observation was made by this Court in the judgment with reference to the claim set up by the appellant under Section 106 of the KLR Act, which in fact did not arise for consideration before this Court as it had only dealt with the substantial question of law framed in the second appeal. I do not wish to express any opinion on the claim of the appellant under Section 106 of the Act, and also whether or not such claim is allowable, or if at all it was allowable had it been foreclosed by the binding decisions as between the parties. The review petition and also the delay petition lack merit, and the same are dismissed. S. S.Satheesachandran, Judge cdp/-