IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 RP.No. 1268 of 2008(K) ---------------------- (W.P(C).NO.12492/08) REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. PERINTHALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. K. JANAKIKUTTY, D/O. KADUTHINATTIL KAMAKSHI AMMA, PERINTHALMANNA, PATHAIKKARA AMSOM. 2. SETHUMADHAVAN, S/O.M.P. DAMODARAN NAIR, KADUTHINATTIL HOUSE, PATHAIKKARA AMSOM, PERINTHALMANNA. BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.1268 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).12492 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 O R D E R On the strength of an arbitration award under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, issued on 11.6.1996, the review petitioner filed E.P.No.93/97 before the Sub Court, Manjeri. On 8.12.2003, the executing court closed that execution petition, after recording full satisfaction of the decree. On 9.4.2008, respondents herein filed W.P(C).12492/08, seeking a direction to the review petitioner society to execute a release deed as regards the mortgage. Being a transaction in housing sector, there has to be a finality without much delay. Accordingly, on 26.8.2008, this Court issued judgment directing the execution of the release deed, taking note of the fact that the executing court's order dated 8.12.2003 had become final. It appears that instead of complying with that direction within the time limit of three months fixed by that judgment, the society filed Civil Revision Petition.No.807/08, challenging the executing RP.1268/08 Page numbers court's order dated 8.12.2003. That revision petition is supported by an application to condone the delay of 1658 days. When that C.M.A.1008/08 came up for consideration, this Court issued an order on 13.11.2008 to the effect that notice will be issued to the respondent in that revision only on complying with the direction of this Court issued on 26.8.2008 in W.P(C). 12492/08. The society has now filed this review petition, seeking variation of the judgment dated 26.8.2008 in W.P(C). 12492/08. The ground raised in this review petition is that if the release deed is executed before the disposal of the CRP, the society will be put to loss and injury. 2. No error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment sought to be reviewed is pointed out. The fact that the executing court's order dated 8.12.2003 stood final as on the date of the issuance of the judgment sought to be reviewed cannot be disputed. I do not venture to consider the contents of the executing court's order because of the pendency of the CRP. There is no error of law amounting to an error apparent on the RP.1268/08 Page numbers face of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Even on facts, there is no error on the face of the judgment. The institution of the CRP with an application to condone delay and the insistence of this Court for the direction in the judgment dated 26.8.2008 in W.P(C).12492/08 as a condition precedent for issuing notice on the CRP is no ground to entertain the application for review against that judgment. This is all the more so because this Court has issued an order dated 13.11.2008 in C.M.A.1008/08 in CRP.807/08 acting on the finality of the judgment now sought to be reviewed. For the aforesaid reasons, this review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to prosecute the C.R.P. and C.M.A. in accordance with law. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.1/1.