IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 9961 of 2010(O) ------------------------- IA NO.2231/2009 IN OS.332/2008 of ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE VARGHESE, AGED 43, S/O.JOSEPH VARGHESE, CHAKKANADU HOUSE, KAINAKARI VILLAGE-DESOM, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- ABDUL NAZAR, S/O.MOIDEEN, IRIPAKOTTIL HOUSE, VAZHAKKAL DESOM-VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.9961/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.332/2008 DATED 21.4.2008 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE PASSED IN OS NO.332/2008 DATED 10.6.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IA NO.2231/2009 IN OS NO.332/2008 DATED 11.6.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED ON IA NO.2231/2009 IN OS NO.332/2008 DATED 6.,8.2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA //TRUE COPY// THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.9961 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition is in challenge of Ext.P4, order dated 06.08.2009 in I.A.No.2231 of 2009 in O.S.No.332 of 2008 of the court of learned Additional Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda. Respondent/plaintiff sued petitioner/defendant for recovery of money and that resulted in Ext.P2, decree. Pursuant to an endorsement made by counsel for petitioner on the written statement that the claims (contentions) are withdrawn, decree was passed directing petitioner to pay Rs.12,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the principal sum of Rs.12,00,000/- from the date of suit till realisation. Cost was specifically refused. There was ofcourse a direction for refund of half the court fee paid by respondent/plaintiff. Respondent filed I.A.No.2231 of 2009 for review of the judgment and decree in so far as cost was not allowed. It would appear that no objection was preferred by the petitioner. Learned Additional Sub Judge as per impugned order observed that “the contention that costs is not allowed appeared to be a bonafide mistake on the part of court. So the petition is allowed to that extent”. That order is under challenge in this proceeding. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there was no scope for review since the decree specifically declined cost to the respondent. Learned counsel for WP(C) No.9961/2010 2 respondent contended that it was due to a bonafide mistake committed by the court that cost was disallowed and that application for review was not even objected by the petitioner. 2. A wrong judgment or decree cannot be reviewed. Power for review is not an inherent power of the court. Review is possible only under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is seen from Ext.P2, decree that the decree states “no costs”. In otherwords, the prayer for cost in the plaint has been specifically adverted to and disallowed by the court. If the decree to that extent is wrong remedy of respondent is by way of appeal. Review is not a substitute for appeal and hence, petition for review could not be maintained. Therefore the order under challenge in this proceeding cannot be sustained. Resultantly this Writ Petition succeeds. Ext.P4, order on I.A.No.2231 of 2009 is set aside and that application will stand dismissed but, without prejudice to the right if any of respondent to challenge the decree to the extent it disallowed cost in appeal as provided under law. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks