IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RP.No. 598 of 2009()
1. VELIYAMBRA RAVEENDRAN,S/O.MADHAVI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VELIYAMBRA PURUSHOTHAMAN,S/O.MADHAVI,
... Respondent
2. VELIYAMBRA ASHOKAN,S/O.MADHAVI,
3. VELIYAMBRA PRAKASHAN,S/O.MADHAVI,
4. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL SUFEEKER,
5. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL JABEER,
6. KOTTAKKAKATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL MUHAMMED
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
P.R.RAMAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-------------------------------
R.P. No.598 of 2009 in F.A.O.No.204 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd July, 2009
O R D E R
Raman, J.
This is a petition seeking review of our judgment
dated 8.6.2009 in F.A.O. No.204 of 2008.
2. The review petitioner is the appellant. The
appeal itself arise out of an order passed granting temporary
injunction in a suit for partition, and injunction was granted in
favour of the plaintiff from alienation of the properties which was
in possession of the appellant herein. During the pendency of
the appeal, a petition was moved seeking permission to sell
item Nos.7 to 26. However, this Court, by order dated
20.10.2008 in I.A.No.4341 of 2008, granted permission as
sought for. Subsequently, I.A.No.4507 of 2008 was filed by the
first respondent, i.e., the plaintiff, seeking to vacate that order.
By order dated 24.10.2008, after hearing the parties, further
R.P.No.598 of 2009
2
proceedings pursuant to the order dated 20.10.2008 was ordered
to be deferred. Thereafter, nothing was done as such it must be
presumed that the said order was still in force. But it seems that
Item Nos.13 and 14 were sold alleged to be on the same date,
viz., 24.10.2008.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing
for the respective parties.
4. Be that it may, the question which came up for
consideration in the final hearing was as to whether any
reservation should be allowed in favour of additional respondents
4 to 6 who purchased those two items. In the course of our
judgment, in paragraph 4, while describing the facts, two
mistakes have crept in. The actual items which were sold being
Item Nos.13 and 14, it was wrongly mentioned as item Nos.7 to
26. Like wise, the alienation was in favour of additional
respondents 4 to 6 and not by them . Since these are mistakes
apparent on the face of records, even without any review
petition, they have to be corrected.
R.P.No.598 of 2009
3
4. Accordingly, we direct that in paragraph 4 of our
judgment dated 8.6.2009 in F.A.O.No.204 of 2008, Items 7 to
26 shall be substituted as Items 13 and 14 . Likewise, in
the next sentence, “It appears that those items were
alienated by additional respondents 4 to 6”, the word “by”
shall be substituted with the word “to”. In additional to that, in
the first sentence in paragraph 5 of our judgment, “Learned
additional respondents 4 to 6” may be substituted as
“Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.Chitambaresh, appearing for
additional respondents 4 to 6”. There is no other error
apparent on the face of records.
The review petition is allowed to the above extent.
P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN , JUDGE.
nj.