IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 775 of 2009() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.125/2009 DATED 13/07/2009. .................... PETITIONER IN R.P-PETITIONER IN CRP -------------------------------------------------------- VEERAVU, S/O.ILLIKKOTTIL SAIDALI, KUMARANELLUR VILLAGE AND DESOM, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT IN RP-LRS OF RESPONDENTS IN CRP ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT KANJIRASSERY DESOM, MULLOORKARA, VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. 2. JALAJA, D/O.P.P.BHASKARAN IN -DO- -DO- 3. JAYAN S/O.P.P.BHASKARAN IN -DO- -DO- BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P No.775 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R Review petition is filed against the order dated 13/07/2009 in C.R.P No. 125 of 2009 disposed by this court negativing the objections raised against an order passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram allowing an application for setting aside an exparte decree in a suit for specific performance. In the memorandum of review petition among other grounds, it is canvassed that the order passed by this court is vitiated by errors of fact and law apparent on the face of the record. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner. At the time of hearing, the R.P No.775 OF 2009 Page numbers learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that pursuant to the passing of the exparte decree, the entire balance sale price was deposited before court and a sale deed was got executed through court spending a sum of nearly Rs.20,000/- including the registration charges. The court below setting aside the exparte decree has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,000/-. But because of a typographic error in the operative portion it is stated as Rs.1,000/- and that amount alone had been paid and received. The counsel seeks for at least a direction to the court below that the petitioner / plaintiff in the suit will be entitled to adjust the amount that had already spent to get a conveyance through court. Pursuant to setting aside the exparte decree, ultimately if he is entitled to a decree after trial, the gains as far invurred should also be included in the cost, for which a direction to the court below is asked for. R.P No.775 OF 2009 Page numbers I find some force in the submissions made by the counsel. The learned counsel who appeared for the respondent, who is reported to be no more, submitted that only a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid as cost in view of the typographical error in the order, but, the balance sum of Rs.1,000/- will be paid or deposit within two weeks from this date. That submission is recorded. After going through the memorandum of revision and taking note of the submissions made, I find no ground has been made out for reviewing the order passed by this court as I find some force in the submission made by the counsel that in the balance sale prize payable, if a decree is passed in his favour, the amount spent by him for getting a registered sale deed through court has to be adjusted to avoid miscarriage of justice. I direct the court below to take that aspect also into consideration in case it is found after trial that the review petitioner / plaintiff R.P No.775 OF 2009 Page numbers is entitled to a decree for specific performance as sought for in his suit. Subject to the above observation the review petition is closed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv