IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1139 of 2010(O) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OPC.674/2010 Dated 01/12/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ M.P. CHANDRAN PILLAI, S/O.V.K. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT MATTATUVADAKKATHIL, PATHIYOORKALA, KEERIKADU.P.O, ALEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN, SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------- B. RAJASHEKARAN, SHYAM NIVAS, HOUSE NO.163A, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOLLAM - 691 001. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J ----------------------------------- R.P No.1139 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 JUDGMENT This petition is filed by the decree holder in E.P.No.601/04 in O.S No.347/1996 of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Mavelikkara for review of judgment dated 01.12.2010 in O.P.(c) No.674/2010. Respondent/judgment debtor filed Ext.P3, application under order 21 Rule 83 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Vide O.P.(c) No.674/2010 he requested this court to direct learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P3, application as early as possible. 2. This court by Judgment dated 01.12.2010 directed learned Sub Judge to dispose of Ext.P3 application as early as possible giving it top priority. The said direction was made after hearing counsel on both sides. 3. Grievance of the petitioner /decree holder is that attempt of respondent is to some how prolong the execution proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner /decree holder argues that in the circumstances, judgment of this court is to be reviewed. Learned counsel for the respondent /judgment debtor submits that executing court R.P No.1139/2010 2 has already disposed of Ext.P3, application granting some time to the respondent to pay off the decree amount by private sale of the property. It is also contended by learned counsel that petitioner has not so far challenged the said order. 4. Having heard both sides, I do not find any reason, factual or legal requiring to review judgment dated 01.12.2010, since this court did not decide Ext.P3 application on merit and only directed executing court to dispose of that application. Having regard to the arguments advanced by both sides, I am not persuaded to think that the judgment dated 01.12.2010 in any way affected right of petitioner. There is no error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reasons made out to review the judgment dated 01.12.2010. If petitioner is aggrieved by the decision on Ext.P3 application, his remedy is elsewhere. This review petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH (JUDGE) ss/-