IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 1074 of 2009()
1. KRISHNAVENI,W/O.LATE GOPI RAO,
... Petitioner
2. MANIKANDAN,S/O.LATE GOPI RAO
3. SMT.SINDHU,D/O.LATE GOPI RAO
4. SMT.INDU,D/O.LATE GOPI RAO
5. SMT.REKHA,D/O.LATE GOPI RAO
Vs
1. T.RADHA BAI,W/O.LATE THUKKU RAM,
... Respondent
2. N.HARISANKAR RAO,S/O.LATE NAMU 73 C,
3. N.NARAYANA RAO,S/O.NAMU,
4. N.KRISHNA RAO,S/O.LATE NAMU,
5. N.RUGMINI BAI,W/O.KRISHNA RAO,63,
6. K.RAJAMMA BHAI,W/O.BALANADHA RAO,
7. T.PRASAD RAO,S/O.THUKKURAM RAO,
8. K.MURALY,S/O.K.RUGMINI BHAI-63,
9. K.AMARNADH, -DO- -DO-
10. K.JANARDHANAN, -DO- -DO-
11. K.RAJESH, -DO- -DO-
12. HEMALATHA, -DO- -DO-
13. CHANDRA,W/O.LATE AMARNATHU, -DO- -DO-
14. MASTER SATHEESH,S/O.AMARNATHU, -DO- -DO-
15. MASTER VINOD,S/O.LATE AMARNATHU,
16. JEEVA BHAI,W/O.LATE N.HARISANKAR RAO,
17. RAMESH,S/O.LATE HARISANKARA RAO,
18. SURESH,S/O.LATE HARISANKARA RAO,
19. ASOK,S/O.LATE HARISANKARA RAO,
20. GIRIJA BAI,W/O.LATE NARAYANA RAO,
21. SMT.BINDU,D/O.LATE NARAYANA RAO
22. GEETHA,D/O.LATE NARAYANA RAO
23. VAITHEESH RAO,S/O.LATE NARAYANA RAO,
24. SMT.KASTHURI,D/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO
25. SMT.RANI,D/O.LATE KRISHNA RAO
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :24/11/2009
O R D E R
P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.P. No. 1074 of 2009 in
F.A.O.84 of 2009.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2009.
ORDER
Bhavadasan, J,
In a suit for partition, a preliminary decree was
passed. Plaintiff thereafter filed a petition for passing of the
final decree. Final decree was passed. Defendant No.3 wanted
to have the above final decree set aside on the ground that he
had no knowledge of the final decree proceedings. The trial
court finding that no grounds were made out to set aside the
ex-parte decree, dismissed the petition. The matter was
brought up in appeal as F.A.O. 84 of 2009.
2. Appellant was the third defendant in the suit.
The suit was preferred by one of the sisters of the appellant.
A.S. 545 of 1996 preferred by the appellant against the
preliminary decree was dismissed. It was thereafter that the
plaintiff had filed a petition for passing of the final decree.
R.P.1074/2009. 2
3. In order to ascertain whether the appellant had any
real grievance in the matter, this court went through the entire
records relating to the passing of the final decree. On an
appreciation of the materials made available before this court, it
was found that the grievance voiced before this court was
imaginary and it was found that the contention of the respondents
that the attempt of the appellant is to drag on the passing of the
final decree was justified. Accordingly FAO was dismissed.
4. In this review petition, the petitioners, who are the
legal representatives of the appellant, have pointed out that the
appellant had omitted to urge several grounds which were available
to him at the time of hearing of FAO.
5. We find that in the review petition the petitioners
have not made out any ground to review the judgment under Order
47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So also it was after
considering the entire records made available to this court that we
had come to the conclusion that the appellant had no real
R.P.1074/2009. 3
grievance in the matter. The attempt now is to re-agitate the whole
issue afresh. That cannot be permitted in a review petition.
This review petition is without merit and it is
accordingly dismissed.
P.R. Raman,
Judge
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge
sb.