IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3165 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN EA.165/07 IN EP.212/06 IN ARC.739/2005 OF MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT,PERINTHALMANNA. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- PERINTALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING SOCIETY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINTALMANNA. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ALI, S/O. MOOSA, KAPPUNGAL HOUSE, VETTATHOOR AMSOM, THELAKKADU DESOM, PERINTALMANNA TALUK. 2. ABDUL NASSER, S/O. ALI, KAPPUNGAL HOUSE, VETTATHOOR AMSOM, THELAKKADU DESOM, PERINTALMANNA TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== W.P.(C) No.3165 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 28th day of January 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the order dismissing the review application E.A.No.165 of 2007 in E.P.No.212 of 2006 in ARC.No.739 of 2005 of the Munsiff-Magistrate Court, Perinthalmanna. The decree holder bank has filed the review application. By order dated 19.6.2007 on payment of Rs.2032/-, the court recorded as balance amount paid and hence E.P is closed. From that order, we find an endorsement by a counsel that Rs.2032/- is received. There is nothing therein to indicate that an endorsement is there to the effect that full amount is paid. Subsequently the bank filed an application for review contending that an amount of Rs.14,707/- is due after taking into account of the payment of Rs.2032/- on 18.6.2007. The court below dismissed the review application on the ground that since it has been submitted that full satisfaction is there, there is no ground to review the order. I am conscious of the fact that review can be allowed when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or that in spite of due diligence matters were not placed before court on account of the WP(C) 3165/2008 -:2:- non-availability of the same and lastly for any other sufficient reason. I think clauses (2) and (3) will come into play squarely in this case for the reason that when an execution petition is filed the decree holder is entitled to get the amount due under the decree, a mistake of calculation or omission can always be supplemented and it is the duty of the court to see that the actual amount which the decree holder is entitled to get and such a ground shall not be defeated on technical ground. There is sufficient reason to review the order. Therefore I allow the petitioner to review the order dated 19.6.2007 and restore the E.P back to file and direct the executing court to hear both sides, fix the correct amount and if there is any amount further to the decree holder, give further chance to the judgment debtor to pay off the same and if already the amount covers the entire decree amount, then close the E.P. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-