The High Court dismissed a review petition seeking to set aside a compromise decree. The court held that a review applies only to judicial pronouncements, not to settlements entered voluntarily by parties, regardless of alleged irregularities.
The review petition was dismissed; the compromise decree is confirmed as final.
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.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
RP NO. 515 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2020 IN RFA 125/2019 OF HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/SUPPLEMENTARY DEFENDANTS 2,4 & 5:
1 ROOBINA, AGED 42 YEARS (MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS RUBEENA IN THE JUDGMENT IN R.F.A.125 OF 2019 IN OS.239/2012) W/o SANDEEP MOHIYUDHEEN, VALAMBOOR AMSOM, TIRURKKAD DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, THIRURKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 325.
3 FATHIMA NATHASHA MOHIUDIN, AGED 10 YEARS, (MINOR), (MISTAKENLY SHOWN AS NASHADA IN THE JUDGMENT IN R.F.A.125 OF 2019 IN O.S.239/2012) D/o SANDEEP MOHIUDIN, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, THIRURKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 325, MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, THE 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER ROOBINA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/o SANDEEP MOHIYUDHEEN.
BY ADVS. P.CHANDRASEKHAR K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SATHEESH V.T. RANI MADHU MANJARI G.B.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF & DEFENDANTS 1 AND 3:
1 ANIKKADAN MOOSA's SON ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 59 YEARS, THAZHEKKODE AMSOM, DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, BY MUKTHIYAR AGENT MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, 59 YEARS, S/o MOIDEENKUTTY, VATTATHOOR, VALAPPIL HOUSE, KOLATHUR P.O., KOLATHOOR AMSOM,
RP No.515 of 2021
2
PERINTHALMANNA TALUK - 679 338.
2 SANDEEP MOHIDHEEN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/o OTTUPARAMBIL KUNHIMOIDU, VALAMBOOR AMSOM, TIRURKKAD DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 325.
3 NIHAN MOHIYUDHEEN, AGED 23 YEARS, S/o SANDEEP MOHIYUDHEEN, VALAMBOOR AMSOM, TIRURKKAD DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 325.
BY ADV JAMSHEED HAFIZ
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP No.515 of 2021
3
ORDER
The application for condoning the delay was not pressed
into service in view of the direction issued by the Apex Court in Misc. Appln. No.665/2021 and hence the initial objection raised in that behalf cannot be sustained.
matter was settled between the parties and reduced into
writing signed by all the parties along with their
respective counsel, in which, the review petitioner and her husband are parties. She filed the review application to review the compromise and the decree thereof on the ground
that her signature was obtained under a vitiating circumstance and gone up to the extent of contending that somebody has imitated her signature in the compromise. Prima facie, it appears that the case advanced is highly improbable since her husband was also a party to the compromise.
A review cannot be entertained either to rectify or to
RP No.515 of 2021 4
sanctify the act done by the parties. Voluntary actions taken by the parties or actions of parties to litigation by entering into a compromise is not amenable for review. Review can be exhausted only with respect to judicial pronouncement and orders and cannot be extended to the act of parties. The remedy lies somewhere else and not under Section 114 or Order XLVII C.P.C. Review hence fails,
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
DMR/-
RP No.515 of 2021
5
APPENDIX OF RP 515/2021
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURE
ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NAHAN ZIA. ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF NATHASHA. ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PASSPORT NO.J8303801 OF THE 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE NIL
// TRUE COPY //
P.A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be maintained to challenge a compromise decree entered into by parties.
Whether a review petition lies to cure alleged irregularities in the execution of a compromise decree.
Whether voluntary actions by parties to litigate are amenable to extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 114 or Order XLVII CPC.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Abdul Nazar
Sandeep Mohidheen
Nihan Mohiyudheen
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
