High Court Kerala High Court

Kunjumon vs Sajeevan on 5 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Kunjumon vs Sajeevan on 5 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 516 of 2007()


1. KUNJUMON, S/O.LATE MATHAN KOCHUKUNJU,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SAJEEVAN, S/O.LATE MATHAN KOCHUKUNJU,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :05/02/2008

 O R D E R
                              M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                              --------------------------
                           C.R.P. NO. 516 OF 2007
                                ---------------------
                  Dated this the 5thday of February, 2008

                                     ORDER

This revision petition is preferred with a prayer to set aside the order

in FAO 57/03 on the file of the Sub court, Kottarakara and to dismiss the

appeal.

2. A perusal of the order under challenge would reveal that the

Subordinate Judge, Kottarakara has disposed of the appeal on payment of

a cost of Rs.2,000/-. The payment was made on 28.3.07 and the appeal

was allowed. In para 4 of the judgment, the appellate court held that “at

the time of arguments the counsel for the respondent submitted that the

respondent has no objection in allowing the appeal on cost. Hence I feel it

just and proper to allow the appeal on cost.”

3. So it is on the basis of this consent, which is subsequently proved

by the receipt of the payment of cost, the suit has been directed to be

restored to file. Now, it is the settled position that when an order is passed

on consent, the ordinary remedy for the party to challenge it is to approach

the court, which passed the order, stating that there was no consent and

appraise the situation. It is not proper for the revisional court to interfere in

such matters.

C.R.P. No. 516/07 2

4. Therefore I decline to interfere with the order of the learned Sub

Judge, but leave it to the revision petitioner to move an application for

review, if he chooses to do so. The defendant in the suit filed a counter

claim which has been allowed by the court and thereby the claim of the

defendant is allowed by the court. Unless that order in the counter claim is

varied or reversed there may be the difficulty for proceeding with the suit

for the reason that principles of res judicata may apply. I am informed by

the learned counsel for the plaintiff in that suit that an appeal has been

preferred against the counter claim.

Therefore, If the case is restored to file, I direct the learned Munsiff,

where the matter will be pending, to direct the parties to submit about the

stage of the appeal against the counter claim. If there is an appeal, till the

disposal of the appeal against the counter claim, I direct the trial court not

to proceed with the suit.

The civil revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

C.R.P. No. 516/07 3