IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 9315 of 2008(H) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------------- K.T.THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, KOOTTUNKAL HOUSE, VALAYIL PURAYIDOM, MELAMPARA, THALAPALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV.SRI.JAYAKUMAR SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SMT. DEEPA .V. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. ANNA @ ACCAMMA JOHN, MACHIYANIYIL HOUSE, BHARANANGANAM KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE. 2. ALEY @ ACHAMMA, W/O.THOMMAN, KOOTTUMKAL HOUSE, THELLAKOM KARA, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE. 3. TOMY THOMAS, S/O.THOMMAN, KOOTTUMKAL HOUSE, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE, ULLANADU KARA. 4. AVIRAH @ AVIRACHAN, S/O.FRANCIS, KOLLIYIL HOUSE, THALAPPALAM VILLAGE. 5. BRIGIT MATHEW, C/O.A.T.MATHEW, ELAMPLASSERIL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 586. 6. T.C.MATHEW, THANNIKKUNNEL HOUSE, POOVATHANI, KALATHOOKADAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM. Kss ..2/- ...2..... WPC.NO.9315/2008 H 7. T.C.ANTONY, THANNIKUNNEL HOUSE, NARIYANGANAM P.O., BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM. 8. ALEYKUTTY JOSEPH, C/O.JOSEPH CHACKO, THANNIKKUNNEL HOUSE, KURUMANNU P.O., ELIVALI, KOTTAYAM. 9. T.C.DEVASSIA, C/O.KURUVILLA SEBASTIAN, KOLLAMPARAMBIL, CHENNADU P.O., POONJAR. 10. T.V.CHACKO, THANNIKKUNNEL HOUSE, ALAKODE P.O., OTTATHAI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 11. AVIRAH JOSEPH, S/O.LATE T.C.JOSEPH, THANNIKKUNNEL HOUSE, ALAKODE P.O., OTTATHAI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 12. JOSEPH JOSEPH, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. 13. SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, S/O.DO. IN DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== W.P.(C) NO.9315 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging Ext.P11 order whereunder the petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the final decree was dismissed. The review petition was filed contending that in the final decree while accepting the report submitted by the Commissioner, value of item No.1 and 2 of the property was not properly fixed and Exts.P2 and P3 documents were not properly considered and in such circumstance final decree is to be reviewed. As against the final decree, two appeals were filed before this court. R.F.A. 500/2004 was filed by 6th defendant and R.F.A.81/2005 was filed by 5th defendant. Under Ext.P8 judgment dated 2.2.2007 both appeals were dismissed confirming the final decree. After the dismissal of the appeals petitioner filed Ext.P9 W.P.(C)9315/2008 2 petition to rehear the appeal contending that Commissioner has not properly valued item No.1 and 2 of the property and as per Exts.B6 and B7 sale deeds of adjacent property, value per cent is Rs.20,000/-. It was also pointed out that a petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner was pending before the trial court. Division Bench disposed Ext.P9 petition by Ext.P10 order directing Sub Judge to dispose I.A.2634/2003 application filed for reviewing the final decree. Under Ext.P11 order, learned Sub Judge thereafter dismissed the petition. This petition is filed, challenging Ext.P11 order, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that learned Sub Judge did not consider the petition on merits and instead dismissed the application for the reason that the final decree was confirmed in the appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and first respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the W.P.(C)9315/2008 3 petitioner is that inspite of the direction in Ext.P10 by the Division Bench, learned Sub Judge did not consider the merit of the petition for review and Ext.P11 order is to be quashed and learned Sub Judge is to be directed to dispose the same after considering the grounds taken in the review petition. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through Ext.P11 order as well as the judgment of the Division Bench in R.F.A.500/2004 and R.F.A.81/2005, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P11 order. The scope of a review petition is entirely different from that of an appeal. By filing a review petition, parties are not entitled to convert the review petition into an appeal. What was contended by petitioner is that the final decree to the extent objected by the petitioner is not correct as the value of item Nos.1 and 2 of the properties were not taken into consideration. The correctness of the final decree including allotment and valuation of the W.P.(C)9315/2008 4 properties was the issue before the Division Bench in R.F.A.81.2005 and R.F.A.500/2004. Division Bench after considering the final decree along with the objection raised by the parties upheld the final decree. In such circumstance, learned Sub Judge was justified in dismissing the review petition. It is also pointed out that the final decree as confirmed by the Division Bench, was challenged before the Supreme Court in C.C.11808/2007 and it was also dismissed on 12.12.2007. I find no illegality or irregularity in Ext.P11 order. Writ Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006