Review petition allowed because the liquidator respondent was not heard during the writ petition proceedings. The court held that denial of an opportunity to be heard is a sufficient reason for review, leading to the recall of the earlier judgment.
Judgment in W.P.(C) No.13983/2020 dated 10.01.2024 is reviewed and recalled.
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 BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1946
RP NO. 520 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2021 IN WP(C) NO.13983 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER:
LIQUIDATOR AGED 36 YEARS PERINTHALMANNA TALUK RURAL HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.M270, PERINTHALMANNA, MELATTOR UNIT INSPECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, BAIJU MON, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.AMMUKUTTY, KODENGAL PARAMBIL, CHUNDAMPATTA, KULUKKALLOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679322 BY ADV K.RAKESH
RESPONDENTS:
RP 520/2024
-2-
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP 520/2024
-3-
O R D E R
(Dated this the 11th day of July 2024)
This Review Petition is filed by the additional 8th
respondent in W.P.(C) No.13983/2020 to review the judgment dated 10.01.2024. The review petitioner is the liquidator
appointed to the 5th respondent-Society in W.P.(C) No.13983/2020. I.A No.1/2023 was filed on 07.03.2023 to implead the review petitioner herein as the additional 8th respondent. Notice was ordered on 03.04.2023. The
endorsement by the registry shows that the service is not complete on Additional 8th respondent till 20.09.2023. But on 25.09.2023, it was recorded that ‘the learned Government Pleader takes notice for the additional 8th respondent and seeks an adjournment’.
the Liquidator of the 6th respondent-Society. On receipt of
RP 520/2024
-4-
notice from this Court, he went to the office of the Advocate General, and submitted the statement of facts to the Government
Pleader. But the learned Government Pleader could not represent the Liquidator of the Society, and thus, there was no representation for the review petitioner, and the entire facts could not be brought before this Court before passing the judgment under review. If the entire facts were brought before the Court, the judgment would not have been passed by this Court. It is stated in the Review petition that the 1st respondent committed serious malpractice and falsification of records, causing a severe financial burden to the Society. An enquiry under Sections 65, 66 and 68(1) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (for short, the Act) was completed, and a sum of Rs.92,65,515/- is due from the 1st respondent for which proceedings have been initiated, and the 1st respondent filed W.P.(C) No.4847/2021 before this Court and has obtained a stay.
That writ petition is still pending. Moreover, Crime No.18/2017
RP 520/2024
-5-
is pending against the 1st respondent in Perinthalmanna Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC and he was arrested by the Crime Branch and which is now pending as C.C No.520/2022 on the files of the J.F.C.M-I, Perinthalmanna. It is without noticing all these facts that W.P.(C) No.13983/2020 was allowed, and the review petitioner was denied the opportunity to place on record the contentions against the 1st respondent. Therefore, he seeks a review of the judgment dated 10.01.2024.
the review petition, contending that this Court had taken into consideration all the legal facts and relying on the judgment of this Court in Mohanan Nair P.G. v. Omallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. Q 228 and Others [2022 KHC 433], allowed the writ petition on the ground that the 1st respondent’s pensionary benefits could not be withheld under Rule 198 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, since no disciplinary proceedings have
RP 520/2024
-6-
been initiated against the petitioner and are pending. Therefore,
even if this review petition is allowed, the petitioner’s
contention that, huge misappropriation had been made by the 1st respondent and it is because of that the pensionary benefits withheld, cannot be sustained. Unless and until, the disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the 1st respondent under Rule 198, the benefits cannot be withheld.
proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act is a conclusive finding that there has been misappropriation by the 1st respondent. He has challenged the same before this Court and has obtained a stay of the further proceedings. So unless and until, the said writ petition is disposed of, the retirement benefits of the 1st respondent cannot be disbursed. Ultimately, if
it is found that the proceedings initiated against the 1st respondent are legally sustainable, the amounts due to the
RP 520/2024
-7-
Society can only be recovered from the benefits due to the 1st
respondent. Therefore, prayed that the review petition be allowed.
deals with ‘ Application for review of judgment ’. Any person
RP 520/2024
-8-
aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred or by a
decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or, for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.
the opportunity to the additional 8th respondent to project his
RP 520/2024
-9-
case before this Court is a sufficient reason for review of the judgment. Principles of natural justice which prescribes that before any order is passed against a person, he should be heard. The proceedings of this case shows that the review petitioner was not heard before the judgment was passed. This constitute sufficient reason for review of the judgment. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this review petition is to be allowed
and I do so. The judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (C)No.13983/2020 dated 10.01.2024 is reviewed and is recalled.
The review petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE
JS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-hearing of the liquidator respondent constituted a sufficient reason for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohanan Nair P.G. v. Omallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.Referred¶41
Mohanan Nair P.G. v. Omallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. Q 228 and Others [2022 KHC 433]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Venugopan V.V.
State of Kerala
Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Assistant Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies
Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (General)
Basant Balaji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
