IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 RP.No. 145 of 2008(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.23185/2006 Dated 29/06/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------- RADHA PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, VRINDAVAN,THRIKKANNARPURAM, POOVATHOOR P.O., KOIPURAM, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. M/S. ST.GEORGE INVESTMENTS & KURIES, EDATHUA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, CHERIAN GEORGE, KAVILE VEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA. 2. CHERIAN GEORGE, KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA, KUTTANADU. 3. ANU SAJI, W/O. SAJI, KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA, KUTTANADU. 4. SUNU GEORGE, KAVILEVEETTIL, PACHA, EDATHUA, KUTTANADU. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KARITHANAM BY G.P. SRI.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- R.P.145 of 2008 in W.P.(C) 23185/2006 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March , 2008 O R D E R On this Review Petition coming up for admission, I have heard the submissions of Sri. George Mathew the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Though the name of Sri.George Varghese Karithanam, the learned counsel for the respondents decree holder is show in the cause list, there is no resistance to the submissions of Sri.George Mathew. I am of the view that, on the facts and circumstances, which obtain in this case, there is justification for allowing the Review Petition imposing more rigorous conditions on the petitioner. 2. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to pay to the first respondent either directly or through his counsel before the court below a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards decree debt within fifteen days from today and produce memo before the Execution Court. Once the Execution Court notices that memo, the court should R.P.145/2008 2 construe the payment evidenced by the memo as satisfactory compliance of the directions in my judgment dated 29.6.2007. The judgment is reviewed to that extent. Once payment of Rs.75,000/- is made as ordered herein, the court below hear both the parties once again on the issue as to what is the correct balance amount payable by the petitioner and pass orders. It is open to the petitioner to urge all grounds raised by her in the writ petition at the time of hearing. Proceedings for sale of the petitioner's property in execution of the decree should be deferred till there is compliance with the directions in this order. If the sum of Rs.75,000/- is not paid as directed herein, the Review Petition will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk