IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2010 / 30TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 582 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN AS.651/1996 Dated 17/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT ------------------------------- K.PRABHAKARAN, S/O.S.SANKARANKUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS, P.W.D, CONTRACTOR, WEST HILL, PUTHIYANGADI, KOZHIKODE BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. HE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D.NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION, KOZHIKODE-20. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2010, ALONG WITH RP.NOS 583,584,588 AND 589 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN -UL- RASHID, J -------------------------------- R.P.NOS.582, 583,584, 588 AND 589 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 21st day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT This Court disposed of five appeals by a common judgment dated 17th March, 2010. The trial court disposed of the five suits after joint trial and a common judgment was passed. The review petitions are filed seeking to review the judgment and decree in the five appeals. The contention of the review petitioners is that this Court intended an open remand in all the aforesaid cases, so as to direct the trial court to consider the case afresh after giving an opportunity to the parties to adduce fresh evidence. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that, the findings in paragraph 13 of the judgment confirming the findings of the learned Sub Judge that the plaintiff is liable to pay the loss caused to the Government is a mistake by oversight and that this Court never intended so and therefore seek review of the judgments. R.P.NOS.582, 583,584, 588 AND 589 OF 2010 2 2. I do not think, that the grounds raised by the review petitioners in the above mentioned review petitions are sustainable. In fact, this Court confirmed the findings of the learned Sub Judge that the plaintiff is liable to pay the loss caused to the Government. The remand was necessitated in order to ascertain the actual loss amount caused to the Government due to the rearrangement of the work. In fact, the remand itself necessitated is only for the reason that the Government did not produce the orders showing the amount for which rearrangement of the work was made. This Court specifically pointed out, so long as the exact amount between the first work and rearranged work was not known to the court it is difficult to enter a finding that the amount shown in Exts. A22 to 25 are the correct liability on account of the rearrangement of the work. In the said circumstances, this Court was inclined to remit the 4 cases back for the purpose to ascertain whether the amount of liability fixed in Exts.A22 to A25 are the R.P.NOS.582, 583,584, 588 AND 589 OF 2010 3 amounts caused to the Government by way of loss due to rearrangement of the work. In paragraph 13 of the judgment by unmistakable terms this Court confirmed the liability of the plaintiff and the remand is for the limited purpose of ascertaining the quantum of liability. It is not an open remand as submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner nor there is any mistake by oversight. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that while passing the order of remand no direction was issued regarding the refund of the court fee. The appellants are entitled to refund of the court fee paid. The grounds raised in the review petitions are devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID,JUDGE. pm