IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 598 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN FAO.204/2008 Dated 08/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/APPELLANT ---------------------------- VELIYAMBRA RAVEENDRAN,S/O.MADHAVI, VELIYAMBRA HOUSE,P.O.NARATH,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. VELIYAMBRA PURUSHOTHAMAN,S/O.MADHAVI, VELIYAMBRA HOUSE,P.O.NARATH,KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. VELIYAMBRA ASHOKAN,S/O.MADHAVI, VELIYAMBRA HOUSE,P.O.NARATH,NARATH AMSOM AND DESOM KANNUR DISTRICT,AT PRESENT MEMTRO PACIFIC APPARELS 1877/5,18 FEET ROAD,2ND BLOCK,ABR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,BANGALORE-43. 3. VELIYAMBRA PRAKASHAN,S/O.MADHAVI, VELIYAMBRA HOUSE,P.O.NARATH,KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL SUFEEKER, S/O.ABDULLA,THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALUK,K.P.HOUSE,ALLAMKULAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670 142. 5. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL JABEER, S/O.ABDULLA,THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALUK,K.P.HOUSE,ALLAMKULAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670 142. 6. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL MUHAMMED SHUHUD ABDULLA,S/O.ABDULLA,THALIPARAMBA AMSOM DESOM,TALUK,K.P.HOUSE,ALLAMKULAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR-670 142. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON (R4 TO R6) BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPALA NAMBIAR (R2) BY ADV. SRI.V.R.K.KAIMAL (R1) BY ADV. SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN (R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.P. No.598 of 2009 in F.A.O.No.204 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd July, 2009 O R D E R Raman, J. This is a petition seeking review of our judgment dated 8.6.2009 in F.A.O. No.204 of 2008. 2. The review petitioner is the appellant. The appeal itself arise out of an order passed granting temporary injunction in a suit for partition, and injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff from alienation of the properties which was in possession of the appellant herein. During the pendency of the appeal, a petition was moved seeking permission to sell item Nos.7 to 26. However, this Court, by order dated 20.10.2008 in I.A.No.4341 of 2008, granted permission as sought for. Subsequently, I.A.No.4507 of 2008 was filed by the first respondent, i.e., the plaintiff, seeking to vacate that order. By order dated 24.10.2008, after hearing the parties, further R.P.No.598 of 2009 2 proceedings pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2008 was ordered to be deferred. Thereafter, nothing was done as such it must be presumed that the said order was still in force. But it seems that Item Nos.13 and 14 were sold alleged to be on the same date, viz., 24.10.2008. 3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 4. Be that it may, the question which came up for consideration in the final hearing was as to whether any reservation should be allowed in favour of additional respondents 4 to 6 who purchased those two items. In the course of our judgment, in paragraph 4, while describing the facts, two mistakes have crept in. The actual items which were sold being Item Nos.13 and 14, it was wrongly mentioned as item Nos.7 to 26. Like wise, the alienation was in favour of additional respondents 4 to 6 and not by them . Since these are mistakes apparent on the face of records, even without any review petition, they have to be corrected. R.P.No.598 of 2009 3 4. Accordingly, we direct that in paragraph 4 of our judgment dated 8.6.2009 in F.A.O.No.204 of 2008, Items 7 to 26 shall be substituted as Items 13 and 14 . Likewise, in the next sentence, “It appears that those items were alienated by additional respondents 4 to 6”, the word “by” shall be substituted with the word “to”. In additional to that, in the first sentence in paragraph 5 of our judgment, “Learned additional respondents 4 to 6” may be substituted as “Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Chitambaresh, appearing for additional respondents 4 to 6”. There is no other error apparent on the face of records. The review petition is allowed to the above extent. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE. nj.