This appeal dismissed a review petition challenging an order under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court rejected arguments regarding lack of notice, the validity of Order VIIIA Kerala Humanized Code after the 2002 NPC amendment, and the need for a quantum hearing as the liability was evident from records.
Review petition 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 B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/13TH MAGHA, 1938
RP.No. 1058 of 2015 () IN CRP.388/2009
CRP 388/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-09-2014
REVIEW PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT:
MOHAMMED IQBAL SHAH, DIRECTOR, M/S.AIR COSMOS TOURS AND TRADE LINKS(P) LTD., AGED 34 YRS, S/O.K.A.IBRAHIM, ‘MINARA’, V.O.ROAD, VADAKARA.
BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND R2 AND R3:
1. KUNNOTH MOIDU, DIRECTOR, M/S.AIR COSMOS TOURS AND TRADE LINKS (P) LTD., AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.CHOKRU, ‘MAJILIS’, KUNINGAD DESOM, PURAMERI VILLAGE, VATAKARA TALUK, PIN-673 103, NOW WORKING AT AL-ADWAH GROUP, BAHRAIN.
2. N.SUNIL KUMAR, DIRECTOR, M/S.AIR COSMOS TOURS AND TRADE LINKS (P) LTD., AGED 37 YRS, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, ‘PARVATHI SADAN’, NUT STREET, VADAKARA, PIN-673 103.
3. MOHAMMED VANIMAL, DIRECTOR, M/S.AIR COSMOS TOURS AND TRADE LINKS (P) LTD., 38 YRS, S/O.ABDULLA, KUTTIKATTIL HOUSE, VANIMEL, POST KALLACHI, PIN-673506, VADAKARA TALUK, NOW WORKING AT 21 CENTURY BOOK SHOP, P.B.NO.55893, BEHIND BUS STOP, RASHIDIYA, DUMAI.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.B.KRISHNAN SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANILKUMAR V. (VAZHARAMBIL)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DSV/8/2/17
[CR]
B. KEMAL PASHA, J.
................................................................ Review Petition No. 1058 of 2015 in C.R.P. No. 388 of 2009
............................................................... Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2017
O R D E R
Heard.
review petitioner herein. He has sought for the review of the
order passed by this Court mainly on three grounds. The first ground is that the review petitioner was not served with
notice in the revision. The second ground is that Order VIIIA
inserted by the Kerala High Court is not in the Code of Civil Procedure, after the 2002 amendment of the Code of Civil
R.P. 1058 of 2015 in CRP 388 of 2009
-: 2 :-
Procedure, and therefore, the proceedings before the court below and that before this Court are not maintainable. The third ground is that this Court had directed the court below to draw a decree in tune with the order passed by this Court and no opportunity was given to the review petitioner to get the amount due from him, quantified.
R.P. 1058 of 2015 in CRP 388 of 2009
-: 3 :-
available in the CPC. The maintainability of the said provisions were raised before the court below also and the said question was considered by the court below, and the said contention was negatived by the court below.
“Order VIIIA was inserted in the Code by the Kerala High Court by virtue of powers vested in it under Sections 122 and 128 of the Code. As per Section 157 an amendment like the one inserting Order VIIIA will continue to have the
R.P. 1058 of 2015 in CRP 388 of 2009
-: 4 :-
same force and effect as any other provisions of the Code so long as the same is not inconsistent with other provisions. Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act 1976 also saves it, as it is not in any way inconsistent with the amended provisions. Hence, Kerala Amendment inserting O. VIIIA in the Code for “Third Party Procedure' by notification published in Kerala Gazette dated 9-61959 in unaffected by the Amendment Act of 1976(which came into force on 1- 2-1977). As per O. VIIIA Rule 1, the court is bound to issue notice to third party when an interim application has been made thereunder to implead him though it is not bound to implead a party under it.”
to the facts of the present case also. There is no case that the provisions contained in Order VIII A inserted by the
R.P. 1058 of 2015 in CRP 388 of 2009
-: 5 :-
Kerala High Court through the amendment of the CPC are inconsistent with any of the other provisions contained in the CPC after the amendment. Had there been any inconsistency, the said ground could have been maintained. When no such inconsistencies are there, it has to be considered that the said provisions inserted by the Kerala High Court through the amendment of the CPC still continues even after the 2002 amendment.
R.P. 1058 of 2015 in CRP 388 of 2009
-: 6 :-
of merits and it is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.
ul/-
// true copy //
P.S. to Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioner was properly served notice in the underlying revision proceedings.
Whether Order VIIIA of the CPC, inserted by the Kerala High Court, remains valid after the 2002 amendment of the Code.
Whether the review petitioner required an opportunity to quantify the amount due through evidence before dismissal of the petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Anchery Lonappan and Kakoo and anotherApplied¶36
AIR 1980 Kerala 180 · Who else cites this
Mohammed Iqbal Shah
Kunnotth Moidu
N. Sunil Kumar
Mohammed Vanimal
B. Kemal Pasha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
