The High Court of Kerala allowed withdrawal of a civil revision petition filed against an order dismissing a review application in a partition suit. The revisioner was granted liberty to seek appropriate relief and order stay of execution proceedings.
Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate relief; execution proceedings stayed for two weeks.
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 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931
CRP.No. 880 of 2008() --------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2008 IN I.A.NO.6631/2008 IN OS.519/1999 of PRL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR ....................
REVISION PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY, S/O. PADINJARE NADAKKAVU, VADAKKAN DEVASSY, CHIRAKKAL DESOM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------
RAPPAI @ PAHEAL, KATGARA HOUSE, IST FLOOR, FLAT NO.6, 91 MINT ROAD, FORT BOMBAY.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.
C.R.P. No. 880 OF 2008
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2009
O R D E R
Petitioner in the revision is the defendant in OS.519/99
on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Thrissur. Suit was one for partition. In the above suit, after getting a report from an Advocate Commissioner with respect to mesne profits to be paid by the defendant and also other matters a final decree was passed. Pursuant to that final decree, there was an appeal and a second appeal, and the decree passed by the trial court was confirmed. The present petitioner/ defendant challenged the matter further before the apex court in which a contention was also raised that in the final decree passed, there was some mistake as to the calculation of mesne profits, which was contended as not in consonance with the report of the Commissioner which had been accepted. The apex court disposed of the Special Leave Petition directing the party to approach the court below. The petitioner thereupon moved an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for correcting the mistake, which is stated to have occurred
CRP.880/08
: 2 :
with reference to the calculation of mesne profits. The court below, after hearing both sides, dismissed that application for review. The revision is filed impeaching the correctness and propriety of that order.
CRP.880/08
: 3 :
The execution court is also directed to keep in abeyance further proceedings against the property of the petitioner towards realisation of the sum awarded as mesne profit in the decree for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petitioner to deposit the sum calculated towards mesne profits before the court below within one month as undertaken, for extending him the grace period as above to prefer application for the relief canvassed in the revision before the appropriate forum.
Send a copy of the order to the court below and handover copy to the counsel on both sides on usual terms.
Sd/- (S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE)
aks
// True Copy //
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether permission can be granted for withdrawal of the civil revision petition with liberty to seek appropriate relief.
Whether execution proceedings against the petitioner's property should be kept in abeyance during the grace period for depositing mesne profits.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anthony
Rappai @ Paheal
S.S. Satheesachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
