The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition (RP No. 920 of 2021) regarding RFA No. 461 of 2015. The Court held that an earlier judgment in an identical transaction involving different parties and a stranger did not constitute a ground for review.
Review petition dismissed; certified copy issued to the petitioner.
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
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 23RD POUSHA, 1943
RP NO. 920 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.12.2020 IN RFA 461/2015 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT
B. PRASANNAKUMARI
AGED 56 YEARS,W/O MURALEEDHARAN UNNI,
PRASANNALAYAM, IRUMBANANGADU P.O.,
EZHUKONE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 505
BY ADVS.
K.T.THOMAS
MATHEW BOB KURIAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:
1A. THOMAS
AGED 71 YEARS,S/O ABRAHAM THOMAS,
VALLIYATH VEEDU, ARUKALIKKAL KIZHEKKEMURI,
EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-695 543 (DIED).
2 ABRAHAM THOMAS,
S/O. A THOMAS, VALIYATH VEEDU,
ARUKALIKKAL KIZHEKKEMURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE,
ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA -695 543.
3MOLY THOMAS,
W/O. A THOMAS, VALIYATH VEEDU, ARUKALIKKAL
KIZHEKKEMURI, EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA -695 543.
4SAJEEB THOMAS,
S/O. A THOMAS, VALIYATH VEEDU,
ARUKALIKKAL KIZHEKKEMURI,
EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA -695 543.
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RP NO. 920 OF 2021 in
RFA.No.461 of 2015
ORDER
The decree and judgment rendered by
this Court sought to be reviewed on the
ground that in an earlier transaction
identical with the present dispute between
the plaintiff and some other person, the
issue was answered in favour of the
plaintiff. That judgment was not taken
note of by this court while rendering the
impugned judgment sought to be reviewed.
It is pertaining to an entirely different
transaction between the present plaintiff
and a stranger. As such, it may not
constitute a sufficient ground for review.
The review petition will stand
dismissed accordingly. Issue a certified
RP NO. 920 OF 2021 in
RFA.No.461 of 2015
3
copy to the review petitioner forthwith on
application.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
RP NO. 920 OF 2021 in
RFA.No.461 of 2015
4
APPENDIX OF RP 920/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS
NO 65/2009 OF SUB COURT, KOTTARAKKA
Annexure A2CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
24.7.2010 IN OS NO 65/2009 OF SUB
COURT, KOTTARAKKARA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prior identical transaction involving different parties constitutes a sufficient ground for review of a decree.
Whether a decision in a suit between the plaintiff and a stranger can ground a review petition.
B. PRASANNAKUMARI
THOMAS
ABRAHAM THOMAS
MOLY THOMAS
SAJEEB THOMAS
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court