The Single Judge dismissed the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, finding no apparent error on the face of the records and noting that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the S.L.P against the impugned order of 21.02.2022.
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 A. BADHARUDEEN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1945
RP NO. 760 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED21.02.2022 IN CRP 209/2019 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 HASEENA, AGED 49 YEARS W/O. UMMER, CHONATTIL HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHOOR P.O., CHAKKARAMOOLA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 109.2C.K.SHAIJA,AGED 44 YEARS
W/O. ISMAIL, CHAKKUMKULANGARA HOUSE,
KURUNGADU, KANMANAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 556.
3 SHAMEERA, AGED 42 YEARSW/O. HANEEFA ALUKKAL, ALUKKAL HOUSE,
KANMANAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 556.
BY ADVS.
SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI SETHUMADHAVAN
DEEPA NARAYANAN
K.SUJAI SATHIAN
MARY LIYA SABU
VISMAYA VINOD
RESPONDENT/REVISION PETITIONER:
SHAKEELA BANU, AGED 46 YEARS
D/O. THYVALAPPIL PATHUMMA,
W/O. MUHAMMED ASHRAF, THALAKKADU P.O.,
B.P.ANGADI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 325.
FOR R ADV. JAMSHEED HAFIZ
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
31.10.2023, THE COURT ON 08.11.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.760/ 2022 in
2
C.R.P.No.209/2019
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================ R.P.No.760 of 2022 in C.R.P.No.209 of 2019
================================ Dated this the 8 th day of November, 2023
O R D E R
This Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and the review petitioners want to
review a well considered order dated 21.02.2022 in C.R.P.No.209/2019, rendered by this Court.
2 . According to the learned counsel for the review petitioners, there is apparent error on the face of records and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
3 . Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent/revision
R.P.No.760/ 2022 in
3
C.R.P.No.209/2019
petitioner submitted that this Court passed the order dated 21.02.2022 in C . R.P.No.209/2019 after analysing the facts of the case in detail, against which the review petitioners filed S.L.P (C).No.5526/2022 before the Honourable Supreme Court. The Honourable Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P holding as under:
“We do not see any reason to interfere in the matter. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”
4 . Therefore, this Review Petition has been filed, after
dismissal of the S.L.P, with ulterior motive to delay the final decree proceedings and separation of the shares as per the preliminary decree.
5 . On perusal of the order impugned, it could be gathered that this Court analysed the facts and circumstances which led to passing of common order in I.A.Nos.1811/2017 and 1812/2017 dated 04.02.2019 in O.S.No.360/2012 on the files of the Sub Court,
R.P.No.760/ 2022 in
4
C.R.P.No.209/2019
Tirur, and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. In fact, no error on the face of records is available to review the order dated 21.02.2022 in C.R.P.No.209/2019. The Honourable Supreme
Court also hesitated to interfere with the order, in any manner.
In view of the matter, this Review Petition must fail and is
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside on account of apparent error on the face of the records?
Whether the review petition is an abuse of process filed to delay proceedings?
Whether the High Court erred in not interfering with the order?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
supreme court decisionReferred¶34
S.L.P (C).No.5526/2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HASEENA
C.K.SHAIJA
SHAMEERA
SHAKEELA BANU
A. BADHARUDEEN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
A. BADHARUDEEN
Parties & counsel