IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34091 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.3225/2001 of II ADDL.M.C.,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- PYLOTH, S/O.NEELANKAVIL ANTHONY, KUTTUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRESSIA, W/O.NEELANKAVIL ANTHONY, MUNDUR VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. MARIYAM, W/O.CHAKKALAKKAL ALIYAKKAN, AUGUSTY, NETTISSERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. ELIYA, W/O.NOORKULANGARA THONY, POTTORE VILLAGE, DESOM, THRISSUR. 4. ROSSA, W/O.CHANGATH ITTIEACHAN, ADATT VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34091 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs. i) Call for the records of the case leading to Ext.P5 and issue a writ, order or direction to quash/set aside Ext.P5 order and there by allow Ext.P3 application. ii) Grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner is the first defendant in O.S No.3225/01 on the file of 2nd Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur. Suit was filed for partition in which a preliminary decree and final decree had already been passed. Against the final decree, the present petitioner/first defendant had preferred an appeal, but later that appeal was dismissed as W.P.(C).No.34091 OF 2009 Page numbers not pressed. After preferring an appeal and its dismissal as not pressed, he moved an application for review of the final decree passed contending that the final decree is not executable. That application was dismissed by the court. Propriety and correctness of that order is challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find no notice to the respondents is necessary and hence it is dispensed with . The appeal preferred against the final decree was not pressed with the result of its dismissal for the reason a compromise was entered into between the parties, is the submission of the counsel. Since the compromise was not honoured, the review petition was filed later for setting aside the final decree. Whether the compromise is honoured or not, that will not confer any right on the party after the W.P.(C).No.34091 OF 2009 Page numbers dismissal of the suit preferred against the final decree to file an application for review of the final decree. On the dismissal of the appeal preferred against the final decree, there was a merger of the lower court decree with that of the decree passed by the appellate court. On that ground also, the review petition filed before the lower court was not maintainable. There is no merit in the writ petition, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv