IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2009 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No. 256 of 2009(E) AGAINST THE JUDGEMENTIN WPC.881/2009 Dated 18/02/2009 OS.49/1985 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD (EA.970/08 IN EP.70/06 IN FDIA.2797/) REVIEW PETITIONER: IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ MUMTAJ, W/O.USMAN, AGED 63 YEARS, ALAMKADAVIL, ANDRAMPALAYAM, PORULAYIL, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 TO 10: ------------------------- 1. A.IBRAHIM, S/O.ALAVI, AGED 62 YEARS, 16/179, NEHRU COLONY, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD. 2. A.H.AZHAMTHULLA KHAN, S/O.ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, 16/23, THIRUMTHAN THERUVU, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. 3. ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, S/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 4. MUMTAJ, D/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 5. GAWAR, S/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 6. RASHEED, S/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 7. NOORJAHAN, D/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 8. FATHIMA, D/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 9. ASHRAF, S/O.ALIKHAN KHILEDAR, ALAMPALLAM, PUDUSSERY, PALAKKAD. 10. SHAMSUDDIEN, S/O.MOIDEEN KHAN, VINAYAGAR KOVIL STREET, B.K.PUTHUR, KUNIYANPUTHUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P. NO. 256 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) NO. 881 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th March, 2009 O R D E R The Review Petition is filed by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No.881 of 2009, which was disposed of as per the judgment dated 18.2.2009. The judgment was passed on the basis of the consensus arrived at between the parties. The court below was directed not to allow any cheque application for disbursement of the sale price deposited by the 10th respondent. 2. The review petitioner submits that the prayer in the Writ Petition was to issue a writ of mandamus directing the learned Subordinate Judge to consider and dispose of E,A.No.970 of 2008 filed by the writ petitioner under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure before considering and disposing of E.A.No.855 of 2008. E.A.No.855 of 2008 was filed by respondents 3 to 9 for issuing a cheque. The review petitioner submits that even if the relief as prayed for in the Writ Petition is granted, that would not affect the cheque application filed by the review petitioner, who is the first respondent in the Writ Petition. The petitioner submits that at the time of disposing of the Writ Petition, the above facts R.P.NO.256 OF 2009 :: 2 :: were not brought to the notice of the Court and thus an error apparent on the face of the record has occurred in the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent, who is the writ petitioner, submitted that going by the prayer in the Writ Petition, there cannot be any stay of consideration of the cheque application filed by the review petitioner, who is the first respondent in the Writ Petition, namely, Mumtaj, wife of Usman. He submitted that the judgment under review may be reviewed and it may be clarified that the cheque application filed by Mumtaj, wife of Usman can be considered by the court below on the merits. Learned counsel for the review petitioner agrees with this suggestion made by the first respondent. Accordingly, the Review Petition is allowed. It is clarified that the court below shall dispose of the cheque application filed by Mumtaj, wife of Usman, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties. The direction in the judgment under review not to consider any cheque application shall not affect consideration of the cheque application submitted by Mumtaj, wife of Usman. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/