Court dismissed a review petition filed by petitioners challenging a judgment recording satisfaction of liability. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record, the court held the power of review is not a substitute for appeal.
Review petition 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 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933
RP.No. 890 of 2010(M)
--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15243/2006 Dated 05/01/2010
REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2
BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN,SC,K.S.F.E. LTD
RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & 3RD RESPONDENT
ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. FOR R1&2
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
....................................................... R.P.890/2010 in W.P.(C).15243/2006
Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011
ORDER
The Review Petition is filed with an application to condone the delay of 208 days in filing the same, allegedly being aggrieved of the judgment dated 5.1.2010 passed by this Court, whereby satisfaction of the liability was recorded. The observations made in paragraph 7 and 8 of the judgment are extracted below:
R.P.890/10
2
proceedings pursuant to Ext.P17 shall be pursued against the petitioners in respect of the same cause of action.”
In the above circumstances, this Court finds that there is 'no error apparent on the face of the record', so as to exercise power of review. The law is well settled in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Smt.Meera Bhanja v. Smt.Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC, 455) holding that the power of review is not a
R.P.890/10
3
substitute for appeal. No interference is warranted. Review Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge
mrcs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record to warrant exercise of power of review.
Whether the satisfaction of liability recorded in the impugned judgment vitiates due to lack of counter affidavit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryReferred¶30
Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (AIR 1995 SC, 455) · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.P. No. 890 of 2010 (M) Review Petitioner (Respondents 1 & 2 in W.P.)
The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director
The Branch Manager, The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Ernakulam Main Branch
P.K. Velayudhan
Mahila, W/O P.K. Velayudhan
Special Tahsildar (RR), Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd., Ernakulam
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Parties & counsel
