The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a review petition filed against an original civil judgment, finding no error apparent on the face of that judgment, while confining findings to the question of maintainability.
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.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 19TH PHALGUNA, 1943
RP NO. 62 OF 2022
OP(C) 1951/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/S:
1 SHYAM S MENON AGED 55 YEARS S/O. LATE KRISHNA MENON, DARPAN, R. MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM - 682016., REPRESENTED THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS. SUBHA GOKUL MENON, AGED 53 YEAR, D/O. LATE KRISHNA MENON, DARPAN, R. MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 2 SUBHA GOKUL MENON AGED 53 YEARS, D/O. LATE KRISHNA MENON, DARPAN, R. MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. 3 SIVA GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNA MENON, DARPAN, R. MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM - 682016., REPRESENTED THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MRS. SUBHA GOKUL MENON, AGED 53 YEAR, D/O. LATE KRISHNA MENON, DARPAN, R. MADHAVAN NAIR ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM - 682 016. BY ADVS. P.G.SURESH ASWATHY KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 ARAVINDAKUMAR AGED 71 YEARS S/O. GOVINDALU, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.39/4844, M. G. ROAD, RAVIPURAM, KOCHI - 682 016. 2 P. B. GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PUKALAKATTU ETTUKETTIL HOUSE, P. O. PALAROVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 025. 3 BHIMA JEWELS JOSE JUNCTION, MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 682 011.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.62 of 2022
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2022
Having heard the learned Counsel on either side, I am unable to find any error apparent on the face of the judgment, requiring invocation of the power of review. Needless to say, my findings are confined to the question of maintainability, based on appraisal of the factual and legal findings rendered by the executing court. If questions other than those relating to maintainability are to be canvassed, it is for the parties to agitate them before the executing court. The review petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/10.03.2022
R.P.No.62 of 2022
-3-
APPENDIX OF RP 62/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) NO.1951/2020 DATED 20.10.2021.
Shyam S Menon and others
Aravindakumar and others
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
