IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 922 of 2009() IN C.R.P.NO.480 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.480/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.K.SUCHEENDRAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 3. M.K.RAJAPPAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 4. M.K.VIJAYAN, S/O.KUTTAN KACKY, AGED 57 YEARS, MANCHAKATTIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SARITHA DAVID CHUNKATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. DEVAKI AMMA, D/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 2. SANKARANARAYANAN, S/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 3. VENUGOPALAN @ VIJAYAN, S/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. RP.922/09 4. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 5. RAVINDRAN, S/O.KARTHIAYINI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. 6. SURENDRAN, S/O.DEVAKI AMMA, THOTTAPPILLIL, CHHORAKKOTTU KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, PAKUTHI. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009 O R D E R The above petition has been filed to review the order dated 26.8.2009 passed in C.R.P.No.480 of 2009. Petitioners in the above revision are the review petitioners. Review of the order passed in the revision is sought setting forth a case that there is a factual error in recording the date of deposit, which according to the review petitioners/judgment debtors in the execution petition, was beyond the time fixed by this Court for such deposit. The execution court has wrongly stated the date of deposit as 4.8.2007 instead of the correct date of deposit on 14.8.2007. That factual error as to the date of deposit was recorded by this Court also in the order passed disposing the revision is raised as a ground to canvass that this Court has accepted wrong recordings of fact by the execution court and that amounts to an error of law apparent on the face of the R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 2 record in its order, which require correction and review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents/decree holders is necessary, and, hence, it is dispensed with. The decree holders have not deposited the cost ordered to be paid to the judgment debtors within the time fixed by this Court, and, therefore, the execution petition was liable to be dismissed, was the case canvassed by the review petitioners/judgment debtors 5 to 8 to resist the execution of a decree passed in a suit for recovery of possession after setting aside a sale deed. The execution court repelled the objections raised, and it was challenged in the revision. That revision, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, was dismissed by order dated 26.8.2009. That order passed by the court in the revision is sought to be reviewed by filing the present petition. R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 3 3. Some of the undisputed facts involved in the case are thus: the execution taken from the decree was dismissed for default of the decree holders in not depositing the value of the improvements. That execution petition was later restored on the application of the decree holders on deposit of the value of the improvements. Challenge raised against the restoration of the petition by the judgment debtors before this Court was not successful, but, the decree holders were directed to give a sum of Rs.1,501/- as cost to the judgment debtors within two weeks from the date of the judgment. That writ petition WP (C).No.18996 of 2005 was disposed by judgment dated 30.7.2007. Costs of Rs.1,501/- so ordered by this Court was not paid within the time fixed, that is, two weeks, was the challenge of the judgment debtors to resist the execution. The execution court negatived that objection noticing that an application moved by the decree holders as I.A.No.10680 of 2007 in the above writ petition, WP(C).No.18996 of 2005 was allowed and the deposit of cost made before this Court was R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 4 accepted as a valid deposit in compliance of the judgment. The deposit was made only on 14.8.2007, much beyond the two weeks for deposit fixed in the judgment rendered in the writ petition, and the execution court has wrongly stated the date of deposit as 4.8.2007, whereas, the deposit was made on 14.8.2007, and this Court disposing the revision accepted the wrong recording of the date by the execution court, is the crux of the case canvassed for review of the order passed in revision. 4. In view of the submissions made by the counsel, I called for and perused the records in the writ petition, W.P.(C).No.18996 of 2005. I find no merit in the review petition. It is evident that the judgment debtors setting forth one case or another without any bona fides is delaying the attempts of the decree holders to get delivery of the property in execution of the decree. The above writ petition moved by the present petitioners/judgment debtors 5 to 8 challenging the restoration of the execution petition was dismissed by this R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 5 Court by judgment dated 30.7.2007 with a direction to the decree holders to deposit the cost of Rs.1,501/- to the judgment debtors; but, in the operative portion of the judgment, instead of directing payment of costs to the petitioners/judgment debtors in the writ petition, by mistake, it was stated, cost to be paid to the respondents or to their counsel. A review petition was filed by the judgment debtors against the judgment passed in the writ petition. The respondents also moved an application I.A.No.12919 of 2007 for correction of some errors in the judgment dated 30.7.2007. The review petition of the judgment debtors and I.A.No.12919 of 2007 of the decree holders, both were considered together and disposed by order dated 8.5.2009. This Court taking note that the decree holders were right in submitting that some confusion had been created regarding the identity of the payer and payee of the amount by the words used in the judgment, passed an order that the cost ordered can be paid to the writ petitioners directly or to their counsel in the court within two weeks from the date of the order. The review petition filed by R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 6 the judgment debtors was dismissed and the application of the decree holders for correction as I.A.No.12919 of 2007 was allowed by order dated 8.5.2009. It is also seen that the decree holders had moved another application as I.A.No.10680 of 2007 on 2.8.2007 within three days from the disposal of the writ petition, W.P.(C).No.18996 of 2005 seeking permission to deposit the cost of Rs.1,501/- payable to the judgment debtors before the court. The reason stated for permission to make such deposit was that the counsel of the judgment debtors declined to accept the cost stating that he has no instruction to receive the costs. I.A.No.10680 of 2007 filed by the decree holders was allowed by this Court on 13.8.2007 noting that no objection was filed by the respondents, and pursuant thereto, the cost ordered in the writ petition was deposited by the decree holders on 14.8.2007 before the court. In the order passed by the execution court, which was challenged in the revision, the date of deposit was wrongly stated as 4.8.2007 instead of 14.8.2007, and that was recorded by this Court in its order R.P.NO.922 OF 2009 () IN C.R.P.NO.480 OF 2009 7 disposing the revision has been canvassed for filing this review petition to contend that there was apparent error in its order and it warrants correction by way of review. The facts and circumstances involved in the case would unmistakably reveal that the case canvassed by the judgment debtors is bereft of any merit, and it is solely intended to prolong the execution of the decree. Review petition is dismissed directing the execution court to complete the execution proceedings within one month from the date of this order. Send a copy of the order to the execution court forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp