Review petitioner challenged a judgment dismissing a second application for passing final decree. The High Court distinguished precedents regarding belated mortgage deposits and held no latent error of law existed in the initial decision, dismissing the review petition.
The Review Petition No. 1286 of 2008 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930
RP.No. 1286 of 2008()
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.750/2008 Dated 30/10/2008
REVIEW PETITIONER
KUMARA PILLAI SUDHAKARAN,
KAKKARA THACHANVILA VEEDU,
AYIRAYIL DESOM, KARODU VILLAGE
BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
R.P. No. 1286 of 2008
-2-
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.RAMKUMAR,J.
................................................... R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 750 of 2008
DATED: 10-12-2008
ORDER
This Review Petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-10-2008 delivered by this Court in R.S.A. 750 of 2008 as per
which this Court answering the question of law held that an application for passing the final decree was not barred by Art. 137 of the Limitation or any other provisions of law since it was the legal obligation of the court to pass a final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree. The decision reported in Achaldas
Durgaji Oswal v. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda -(2003) 3 SCC 614 and (1993) 4 SCC 431 – K. Parameswaran Pillai v. K. Sumathi @ Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and Another relied on by the review petitioner have no application to the facts of this case. Those are cases which related to the belated deposit of the
mortgage money. It was under those circumstances that the court held that that the application was barred by limitation.
R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 in R.S.A. No. 750 of 2008 -:2:-
That is not the position here. Even the questions of law formulated in the memorandum of Second Appeal were the
following:-
It was the aforesaid questions which were answered by this Court while disposing of the R.S.A. I do not find any error of
law apparent on the face of record to entertain this review
petition. This Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this 10th day of December 2008.
V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ani
R.P. No. 1286 of 2008 in
R.S.A. No. 750 of 2008 -:3:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for passing a final decree was barred by limitation under Art. 137.
Whether to entertain a review petition to correct an error of law apparent on the face of record in a final decree application dismissed earlier.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Achaldas Durgaji Oswal v. Ramvilas Gangabisan HedaDistinguished¶33
Achaldas Durgaji Oswal v. Ramvilas Gangabisan Heda -(2003) 3 SCC 614 · Who else cites this
K. Parameswaran Pillai v. K. Sumathi @ Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and AnotherDistinguished¶33
(1993) 4 SCC 431 – K. Parameswaran Pillai v. K. Sumathi @ Jesis Jessie Jacquiline and Another · Who else cites this
KUMARA PILLAI SUDHAKARAN
NARAYANAN PILLAI VELAPPAN NAIR
PANKAJAKSHY AMMA
RAJENDRANKURUPPU RAJASEKHARAN
RAJENDRAKURUPPU RAJESH
RAJAMMA RAJITHA
V. RAMKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
