IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 409 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3597/2010 Dated 25/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT NO.1: --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAZARUDEEN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, NAZIRA MANZIL, ACKOLIL CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM,KOLLAM, NOW RESIDING AT NAZIRA MANZIL, MUITHRABHUMI NAGAR,KURIPPUZHA CHERI, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KAVANADU PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHADRAN.R, S/O.RAMAN KAVILAYIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY,KOLLAM. 2. UDYAPRAKASH, S/O.BHADRAN, KAVILAYIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY,KOLLAM. 3. SREEDEVI, W/O.UDAYAPRAKASH, KAVILAYIL VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. B.SURESH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------- R.P. No.409 of 2010 in W.P (C) Nos.3597 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 31st May, 2010 O R D E R Petitioner in this review petition seeks to have the order dated 25.3.2010 in W.P (C)No.3597 of 2010 reviewed. 2. It is stated that the petitioner obtained a decree against two persons and that was put in execution in E.P. 360/2006. Immovable properties belonging to the judgment debtors were attached and brought to sale. It is bid in the sale. Sale was confirmed in their favour. It is pointed out that it was after issuing encumbrance certificate, property was brought to sale. Properties sold were two cents in Resurvey No.120/2 and 0.30 ares in resurvey No.120/2005 of Kollam West Village. Judgment debtors obtained the same as per sale deed No.1653/2001 and 1822/1991 of Kollam Sub Registry Office. 3. It is claimed that decree holder applied for delivery of the property on 16.3.2009 as per E.A R.P. No.409 of 2010 in W.P (C) Nos.3597 of 2010 2 No.174/2009. It was posted for return of notice to 15.6.2009. It was then posted to 30.6.2009. On 24.06.2009 the 1st respondent herein filed E.A No.366/2009 under Order 21 Rules 97 and 98 of C.P.C obstructing the delivery of the property. On 30.6.2009 the claim petition was called and adjourned for hearing to 20.08.2009. It was again adjourned to 16.10.2009. On 13.10.2009 itself the petitioner has filed his objections to the claim petition. It was then adjourned to 05.01.2010, and again it was adjourned to 01.02.2010 for evidence. On 01.02.2010 the said claim petition was dismissed for default and delivery was posted to 02.02.2010. On 01.02.2010 the claim petitioner filed an application for restoration of the claim petition. It is pointed out that there was no posting on 02.02.2010. By the time the claim petition was posted, delivery had been effected. It is pointed out that it was without noticing the above fact that the order has been passed by this Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the order passed by this Court may be reviewed and judgment may be recalled. R.P. No.409 of 2010 in W.P (C) Nos.3597 of 2010 3 4. There is no merit in the review petition at all. It is after calling for a report from the court concerned that the order has been passed by this Court. This Court had occasion to note that after dismissing the claim petition on 01.02.2010. delivery was posted to 02.02.2010. On the same day itself restoration petition has been filed and at the time of roll call on 2.2.010, it was brought to the notice of the court.. It was during the pendency of the said petition, the order of delivery was passed. This Court found that the act of the Court cannot be justified and had resulted in miscarriage of justice. 5. Under those circumstances, the petitioner before this Court was directed to be put in back in possession of the property if he has been dispossessed and also a direction was issued to the court below to dispose of the claim petition within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. At the time of hearing of this review petition, this Court was given to understand that the execution court was reluctant to comply with the order of this Court and R.P. No.409 of 2010 in W.P (C) Nos.3597 of 2010 4 that the petitioner in O.P. had to approach the District Court for orders. One can say that act of the trial court is not very commendable. Whatever that be the circumstances under which the order came to be passed, has been narrated in detail in the order. There is no ground to review the said order. Moreover, this Court was aware of the seriousness of the issue and therefore had directed the lower court to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The prayer now made that redelivery and re-possession may await the order on the claim petition. There is no merit in the said contention. The Review Petition is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE ma R.P. No.409 of 2010 in W.P (C) Nos.3597 of 2010 5 R.P. No.409 of 2010 in W.P (C) Nos.3597 of 2010 6