IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2008 / 27TH POUSHA 1929 RP.No. 834 of 2006 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RFA.169/2004, DATED 06/06/2006 REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: --------------------------------------------- GEORGE VARGHESE, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. GEORGE, CHUZHUKUNNIL, THODICKAL P.O., KOTTANADU VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. V. CHERIAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, KURUNTHODATHIL HOUSE, VELLIYARA MURI, AYIROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK. 2. VIMALA CHERIYAN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O. CHERIAN, KURUNTHODATHIL HOUSE, VELLIYARA MURI, AYIROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK. 3. K.C. MARIYAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. JOSEPH, KURUNTHODATHIL HOUSE,VELLIYARA MURI, AYIROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.KESAVAN NAIR SRI.K.G.CLEETUS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO.477 OF 2007, THE COURT ON 17/1/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN,JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.834 of 2006 in R.F.A.No.169 of 2004 and R.P.NO.477 of 2007 in R.F.A.No.90 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th January, 2008 O R D E R K.T.SANKARAN, J. The appellant in R.F.A.No.169 of 2004 and in R.F.A.No.90 of 2005 has filed R.P.Nos.834 of 2006 and 477 of 2007 respectively. The appellant in these appeals is the same person. R.F.A.No.169 of 2004 arose out of O.S.No.121 of 1997, a suit filed by the appellant/review petitioner. That suit was decreed in part, against which the appellant filed R.F.A.No.169 of 2004 and the first defendant filed R.F.A.No.198 of 2004. R.F.A.No.90 of 2005 was filed by the appellant challenging the dismissal of the suit filed by him as O.S.No.98 of 2003. O.S.No.98 of 2003 was a suit for injunction. 2. Heard the counsel for the review petitioner and the respondents. The contentions of the review petitioner, if accepted, would have the result of the Review Petitions being treated as appeals, which is impermissible under law. The contentions which were raised and found against in the appeals are sought to be raised again in the Review Petitions. We do not find any ground to allow the Review Petitions. R.P.NOS.834/2006 & 477/2007 :: 2 :: 3. Lastly, learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that the findings in paragraph 18 of the judgment under review would prejudicially affect the review petitioner in defending the suit for specific performance filed by the first respondent in R.P.No.477 of 2007. That a suit for specific performance is pending was noticed by the Division Bench while disposing of the appeals. The Division Bench, therefore, thought it fit not to finally pronounce upon the question regarding the agreement for sale between the review petitioner and the first respondent. While evaluating the evidence as well, the Division Bench held thus: “We do not want to pronounce on the correctness or otherwise of the evidence as the suit for specific performance is pending between the parties.” In the background of these facts, the Division Bench found that the plaintiff has not produced any material evidence to show that he was in possession of the property as on the date of suit. In arriving at that finding, the Division Bench also noticed the evidence of DW2 to the effect that the property was put in possession of the defendants. It was also noticed that even according to the plaintiff, the second defendant was looking after the property and he has even cut and removed the trees, and on that basis, an inference was drawn that the plaintiff had lost possession. The discussion in paragraph 18 and the findings rendered therein was for the effective and proper disposal of the appeal arising R.P.NOS.834/2006 & 477/2007 :: 3 :: from the suit for injunction. Guardedly, the Division Bench noticed that on many disputed questions, a final conclusion was not being arrived at, as a suit for specific performance is pending disposal. The questions which are to be decided in the suit for specific performance could not be dealt with in the suit for injunction. It is for that court to deal with those issues. Therefore, no clarification or review is required. What would be the effect of the judgment passed in the appeals in a subsequent suit is not for us to decide in these Review Petitions. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to allow the Review Petitions. Accordingly, these Review Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/