IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2009 / 15TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 727 of 2009(S) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN COC.1397/2007 Dated 16/10/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. DR.VARGHESE MUNDACKAL, KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. EMTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD., 39/2418, DIWANS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 16. REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.VARGHESE MUNDACKAL, KARINGAZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVEENDRAN SRI.M.S.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. LOOKOSE NELLIKKATTIL, S/O.VARKEY, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, KARINGAZHA, CHELAD, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. VAVACHAN, S/O.LOOKOSE, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, KARINGAZHA, CHELAD, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. JOSE, S/O.KOCHAPPAN, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, KARINGAZHA, CHELAD, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. MARY JOSE, W/O.JOSE, NELLIKKATTIL HOUSE, KARINGAZHA, CHELAD, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV.ALEXANDER JOSEPH. ` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.NO.727 OF 2009 IN Cont. Case(C).No.1397 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.This application is filed for review of judgment in a contempt of Court case. 2.The allegation in the contempt of court case was that an interlocutory order passed in an RSA was violated. Noticing that in view of Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure and available restitutionary jurisdiction with the civil court, including the High Court in second appeal jurisdiction, I closed the contempt of court case without expressing anything on merits and without prejudice to the petitioner's rights, if any, to seek relief in the second appeal. With the passage of time, it is submitted that the second appeal has been disposed of and the petitioner has not been able to get relief. That by itself is not a ground to review the judgment because willful contempt in the matter of any RP.727/09 Page numbers alleged violation would arise for decision only on finding of actual valuation and it is a matter within the discretion of the court whether or not to initiate action under the Contempt of Court Act, more particularly because any person aggrieved by any civil wrong by way of trespass or otherwise would be entitled to relief before the civil court. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that his client may be eligible for such relief even before the executing court. This is a matter for that court to decide. I do not, therefore, find any ground to review the judgment in the contempt of court case since there is no error apparent on the face of the record. In the result, the review petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed, leaving open all other remedies. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.7/8.