IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 420 of 2010(O) ------------------------------- [THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.5594/2010 DATED 11/03/2010] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ERAMBARATHU HOUSE, VADASSERY HOUSE, KOTTAPADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY. RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------- KURIAKOSE, S/O. POULOSE, CHUNDATTU HOUSE, ELAMBRA KARA, ERAMALLUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI. PEEYUS A. KOTTAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- RP No.420 of 2010 in WP(C) 5594/10 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated 27th May 2010 Order In this Petition, the petitioner seeks to have the Judgment dated 11.03.2010 in WP(C) No.5594/10 reviewed. 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in EP No.186/02 in OS No.103/1998 before the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. He suffered a decree for an amount of Rs.2,94,200/-. 3. The grievance of the petitioner was that in execution of the decree, his entire 54 cents of land was being brought to sale which was unnecessary. According to him, sale of 1/3rd portion of the property would be sufficient to discharge the decree debt. It is seen that the execution court had initially passed an order to that effect and on a review petition filed by the decree holder, it is claimed that without hearing the judgment debtor, the earlier order was reviewed and the entire property was directed to be sold. The petitioner challenged the RP 420/10 2 said order before this Court by filing FAO No.208/04 and this Court by Judgment dated 16.01.2008, set aside the impugned order and directed sale of only 1/3rd portion of the property. 4. The execution court passed an order to sell a portion of the property and that order was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No.5594/10. After hearing both sides, an order was passed by this Court. 5. The petitioner now points out that the property is having a road frontage of 35 metres and it could be divided into three equal portions of which 1/3 portion can be sold. This Court accepted the plea of the petitioner and 1/3 portion on the immediately eastern side of PVIP was directed to be brought to sale. It is pointed out that by mistake, instead of specifying the measurement as 11.66 metres, 15.5 metres of property having road frontage was directed to be sold. It is pointed out that it is a mistake committed by this Court and may be rectified. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that there is no mistake committed by this Court and that it was as undertaken by the petitioner in his Writ Petition that the Judgment was passed and there are no grounds to review the RP 420/10 3 Judgment. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent seems to be well founded in his submission. In paragraph 5 of the Writ Petition it is mentioned as follows. “After Exhibit P2 Judgment, the petitioner had submitted an objection to draft sale proclamation produced by the respondent pointing out that the property had extensive road frontage of 35 metres and it could be divided into 3 equal portions lengthwise and western most portion with a road frontage of 15.5 metre.” It was accepting that proposal of the petitioner in the Writ Petition that the Judgment was delivered. It was the assertion made by the petitioner, which was accepted. Therefore, no error apparent on the face of the record is seen as claimed by the petitioner. This RP is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP 420/10 4 RP 420/10 5