P.V.Ayyappan Ezhuthassan vs Pootharamanna Variyath … on 26 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1001 of 2010()


1. P.V.AYYAPPAN EZHUTHASSAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. POOTHARAMANNA VARIYATH SIVADASAN,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN

 Dated :26/11/2010

 O R D E R
                         P. BHAVADASAN, J.
              - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                       R.P. No.1001 of 2010 in
                        R.S.A. No. 50 of 2008
             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010.

                                   ORDER

In this review petition, the review petitioner

seeks review of the judgment dated 14.9.2010 in

R.S.A.50 of 2008 mainly on two grounds. The first

ground urged is that the observation of this court in

paragraph 21 of the judgment was not covered by the

pleadings and therefore the review petitioner was not

able to meet the point properly. The second contention

is that the dispute is not between the landlord and

tenant, but between the assignor and assignee and as

between them the plea of estoppel may be available to

the review petitioner. On these grounds, it is pointed out

that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record

and the judgment may be reviewed.

2. There is no merit in the review petition. All

that this court had done was to take note of the statutory

R.P.1001/2010. 2

provision while observing that the court below has omitted

to note the impact of section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms

Act. This court has not concluded that point and had left it

open to the lower court to decide the matter afresh. So is

the plea regarding the dispute between the assignor and the

assignee. This court has not concluded any of those matters

and left the matters to be decided by the court below.

However, in the light of the apprehension expressed by the

learned counsel for the review petitioner, it is made clear

that the parties are free to amend the pleadings raising such

grounds as are available to them and adduce further

evidence, if they are so advised.

With the above observations, this review petition

is dismissed.

P. BHAVADASAN,
JUDGE

sb.