IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 156 of 2008(W) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13218/2006 Dated 26/10/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.P. SREEKANTAN NAIR, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAMBIAR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. 2. JAYALAKSHMI S.NAIR, W/O. SREEKANTAN NAIR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENT NOS.1,4 & 5: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M/S. NATIONAL FIRE ARMOUR, 41-A, KUTTY STREET, NEW STERLING ROAD BUS STOP, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 034, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, A.S.MENON. 2. M/S. MALABAR FUEL CORPORATION, TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. K. KARUNAKARAN, FORMER PARTNER OF MALABAR FUEL CORPORATION, VELLUR AMSOM, DESOM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. VIJESH, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, FORMER PARTNER OF MALABAR FUEL CORPORATION, VELLUR AMSOM, DESOM, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. N. SASINDRAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 156 OF 2008 in WPC 13218 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. O R D E R This review petition is preferred to review the judgment of this Court in WPC 13218/06 dated 26.10.07. It is averred in the review petition that the error apparent on the face of the record is writ large and this Court has failed to consider the pleadings in the case and therefore the judgment requires to be reviewed. 2. This Court in the judgment held that the Sub Judge was considering the matter after remand by a Division Bench of this Court and further held that the purpose of remand was to consider about a payment of Rs.1 lakh. The Court further held that what the defendants want to agitate is regarding payment of Rs.85,000/- or Rs.65,000/-. This Court observed that there is no case in the written statement for the defendants regarding such a discharge of payment. This Court also held that the evidence attempted to be adduced is beyond the scope of the order of remand and therefore I set aside the order and remitted it back the to the same Court for R.P. NO. 156/08 in WPC 13218/06 -:2:- consideration of the entire matter afresh after hearing both sides. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has produced a copy of the written statement filed by the defendants and in paragraph 7 of the written statement there is a statement that an amount of Rs.1,59,752/- was paid on different dates in cash to the plaintiff when he visited at Thaliparamba. It has to be held that there is no specific pleadings in the written statement regarding the payment of Rs.85,000/- or Rs.65,000/- on any respective dates. That is why this Court referred to and held that there is no plea to that effect. 4. Now again on a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, against which the appeal was preferred, would show that the case was of discharge of Rs.1,59,752/- but the Court held that it has not been proved. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that on account of the non-registration under Section 69 of the Partnership Act and also held that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid has to be adjusted by R.P. NO. 156/08 in WPC 13218/06 -:3:- accepting the plea of discharge. It is against that decision the plaintiff preferred an appeal and the Division Bench of this Court in the appeal granted an opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce further evidence to prove Ext.A18 which was produced before this Court. This Court also held that though the finding of the trial court that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid as admitted by the plaintiff the said transaction will not be sustainable unless evidence is adduced to contradict the additional evidence. Or in other words the scope of remand by this Court was only to consider about the registration or non-registration of the Partnership and with respect to the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of demand draft or in other words the order of remand only is limited to that. 5. Now the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would argue before me that he has moved an application before this Court to review the judgment passed in the appeal. As things stand we are bound by the judgment passed by this Court and therefore I cannot extend the scope of remand to review of the judgment passed by this Court in R.P. NO. 156/08 in WPC 13218/06 -:4:- the appeal. Therefore with the materials on record I find that the order passed by me does not require any interference and therefore review petition lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-