IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 RP.NO. 339 OF 2010() -------------------- {IN CRP.661/2009 OF THIS COURT} .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT. ------------------------------------------------------- SUBASH, S/O.PREMADASAN, THANDUVELL, THATHAMPALLY,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, PALLIMUTTAM VEEDU, THATHAMPALLY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.339 of 2010 in C.R.P.NO.661 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010 O R D E R Review petitioner is the 2nd respondent in the revision. The revision was disposed by order dated 16.12.2009, without giving notice to the respondents and hearing them. There are some factual mistakes in the order passed by this court disposing the revision and further, the order challenged emanated from an execution proceedings, which on the date when the revision was heard and disposed, had already been terminated by dismissal of the execution petition, are some of the grounds raised for review of the order. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner fairly conceded that some of the submissions made at the hearing of the revision which are taken note of and given expression to in the order of this court are not R.P.No.339 of 2010 in C.R.P.NO.661 of 2009 :: 2 :: correct and it so happened on account of inadvertence. The decree executed, it was submitted, was on the basis of a compromise was the submission by the counsel for the revision petitioner. It is now submitted that it was not a compromise decree, but one on merits. Some observations have been made in the order disposing the revision that a compromise decree was under execution before the court below, which is factually incorrect. Further more, it is also now conceded that when the revision was presented and later heard the execution petition stood dismissed for default. The order challenged in the revision was an interim order passed by the court pending the execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that he was unaware of the dismissal of the execution petition for default R.P.No.339 of 2010 in C.R.P.NO.661 of 2009 :: 3 :: and there was no proper instruction in that regard from his party. Whatever that be, in the light of the circumstances as above noticed, I find, the order passed by this court, that too without notice to the revision petitioner/2nd respondent, has to be reviewed and it is ordered accordingly. Allowing the review petition, it is directed to post the revision for hearing. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.