IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 RP.No. 812 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.7.2010 IN IA. NO.1782/2010 IN RSA.1232/2008. A.S. 87/05, DISTRICT COURT, KOZHIKODE. OS.342/1992, ADDL. MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 6 & 11 IN RSA.1232/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. K.T.AYYAPPAN ALIAS KARUNAKARAN, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SUSHEEL KUMAR, S/O. K.T.AYYAPPAN ALIAS KARUNAKARAN, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. IST APPELLANT BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI 2ND APPELLANT BY SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN, SRI.KODOTH PUSHPARAJAN, SRI.K.JAYESH MOHAN KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS IN IA.1782/2010-APPELLANTS IN RSA.1232/08 & -------------------------- RESPONDENTS IN IA. 1. KUNHIPERACHAN, S/O.KALUR THOTTULI UNICHOYI, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. REMADEVI, W/O.KUNHIPERACHAN, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. SHERIN, S/O.KUNHIPERACHAN, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 4. SHAJU, S/O.KUNHIPERACHAN, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. YADHAVAN, S/O.KUNHIPERACHAN, PUTHIYOTTIL IN KOTTULI AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. RP. NO.812/2010 6. K.T.RADHA, D/O.KALUR THOTTULI UNICHOYI, VILLYGAL KOTTAPARAMBIL, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE. 7. K.T.LEELA, W/O.ALAMBATTA SOMAN, "SATHI VIHAR", KADALUNDI AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY ADVA.SRI.UAYAKUMAR K., BY SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN. R6 & 7 BY ADVS. T.KRISHNANUNNI(SR), SRI.SAJU. S.A. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, ALONG WITH RP NO. 856 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. Nos. 812 & 856 of 2010 & I.A. 2372 of 2010 in R.S.A. 1232 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010. ORDER By order dated 26.7.2010 this court had allowed the petitioners in I.A. 1782 of 2010 to withdraw 21/60 shares of the amount that is lying in deposit with the court below. 2. The review petitions as well as the modification petition have been filed taking objection to the same. In the review petition, it is pointed out that the review petitioners are not made parties in I.A. 1782 of 2010, while in the petition for modification, it is pointed out that there was a bonafide omission on the part of the respondents therein. 3. In the modification petition filed by the appellants, their only grievance is that they have challenged the quantum of shares available to the petitioners in I.A. 1782 of 2010 and their admitted share is only 12/60, so that they seek modification to that R.P.812 & 856/10. 2 extent. R.P. 812 of 2010 is filed by two petitioners. It is now brought to the notice of this court that the counsel appearing in the said review petition has relinquished the vakalath in so far as the second petitioner in the said review petition is concerned. It is seen that the second petitioner therein had filed R.P. 856 of 2010. In the two review petitions filed by those persons, the main grievance is that they were not made parties in I.A. 1782 of 2010, in which the order was made by this court. Thus, it was a deliberate conduct since had they been made parties to the petition, they would have raised their objections. 4. It is to be noticed that the petitioner in R.P. 856 of 2010 had already withdrawn 15/60 shares of the amount , which is due to him. In R.P. 856 of 2010 the main contention is that the petitioner therein has preferred a petition before the court below seeking a supplementary preliminary decree to be passed in his favour. Therefore, it is contended that the amount may not be released. Therein, he claims 30/270 shares. R.P.812 & 856/10. 3 5. As of now, it is to be noticed that no share is alloted to the review petitioner in R.P. 856 of 2010. Being a partition suit, if at all any supplementary preliminary decree is to be passed, shares can always be adjusted. 6. It is true that in the preliminary decree, the petitioners in I.A.1782 of 2010 has been allotted 21/60 shares. But it is brought to the notice of this court that the appeal is against the very quantum of shares allotted to the petitioners therein. Therefore, the admitted shares is only 12/60. 7. Since there is a dispute regarding the quantum of shares available to the petitioners in I.A. 1782 of 2010, it is only proper to modify the order earlier passed by restricting the share of the petitioners in I.A. 1782 of 2010 to 12/60. The permission to withdraw 12/60 shares will be subject to the result of the appeal. The review petitions are disposed of subject to the above modification. R.P.812 & 856/10. 4 It is to be noticed here that the appeals filed by the petitioners in R.P.812 of 2010 as well as R.P.856 of 2010, which are R.S.A. Nos. 219 of 2009 and 945 of 2008 have already been dismissed subject to the observation made in favour of the petitioner in R.P. 856 of 2010. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.