IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 857 of 2009(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.37104/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- PRAMOD C.KUMAR, (INDIA), AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF ANANDAN, SENIOR SYSTEM MANAGER, 2062, SUPERIOR C T TRACY, CA 96304-5800 USA, HAVING INDIAN ADDRESS AT 603, ALAGIRISWAMY SALAI, K.K.NAGAR, CHENNAI-78, TAMIL NADU STATE. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ SMT.K.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JAYANTHI PRAMOD(USA), 40 YEARS D/O.SEKHARAN, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 687, HAROLD SMITH DR.TRACY, CA-95304, USA( OLD) (PRESENT) 719 SPARROW CT,TRACY.CA.95377 USA PHONE: 209-814-5668, E mail: jayne, pramod@ci.tracy,ca.us and tracyjaya @yahoo.com PERMANENT INDIA ADDRESS AT MASCOT HOUSE, NEAR.GOVT,HIGH SCHOOL,PAYAMBALAM POST,KANNUR KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, KEREALA. BY ADV.MR.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.857 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.37104 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th November, 2009 ORDER The review petition is filed by the petitioner in the above writ petition to review the judgment dated 15.6.2009 by which the petition was dismissed. The writ petition was filed to issue direction to the Sub Judge, Thalasseri to appoint an advocate commissioner to assess the value of income and the assets of the respondent in the petition on the basis of a letter of request issued from a foreign court. After hearing both sides and taking note of the impracticability of ascertaining the matters sought for under the letter of request from the foreign court by appointment of an advocate commission and also by the time the petition was heard, final orders had been passed in the matrimonial proceedings in the foreign court which sent the letter of request, this court declined to grant the reliefs canvassed by the petitioner, and the writ petition was dismissed. Now the review petition has been filed raising various grounds even challenging the correctness of the judgment rendered in the writ petition and also raising a plea that some proceedings are still continuing in the foreign court in relation to the matrimonial disputes between the RP No.857/09 - 2 - parties and, so much so, the court which issued the letter of request has not terminated the proceedings so far. 2. I heard the counsel for the review petitioner. The foreign court in the letter of request issued on the application of the writ petitioner/review petitioner has requested for ascertaining the assets of the respondent/wife acquired during the marriage period from May, 1988 to July, 2006 in India. Petitioner wanted the appointment of an advocate commissioner from the Sub Court to ascertain such details with respect to the assets acquired by the respondent/wife. Taking note of the letter of request and the incompetency of the advocate commissioner in determining the value of immovable properties without sufficient materials over a long period of time, this court found that the letter of request made by the foreign court was not entertainable. The reasoning of the court in forming such conclusion is sought to be assailed by filing this review petition with reference to the provisions under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure which deal with the appointment of commission. Rules 10 to 16 of the Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure enable appointment of a commissioner appointed by the court to ascertain the valuation of immovable property and that being so, an advocate RP No.857/09 - 3 - commissioner can be appointed to ascertain the value of the properties acquired by the respondent is the case canvassed by the review petitioner. The grounds canvassed for review of the judgment rendered in the writ petition has no value or merit at all. So far as the issue of commission at the instance of foreign tribunals, the relevant rule applicable is Rule 19 of Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure which permits appointment of a commission to examine a witness and that alone. Even assuming that on a letter of request from a foreign tribunal, it is open to this court to issue directions to the court below to collect evidence other than that of examining any witness by resort to other rules under Order 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure it has been found on the facts presented in the case that the letter of request made for ascertaining the details requested for cannot be complied with. There is no merit in the review petition, and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE