AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice M.L. Joseph Francis
R.P.No. 91 of 2010 is filed by the appellant in A.S. No. 285 of 1997 and R.P.No. 98 of 2010 is filed by the appellant in A.S.No. 283 of 1997 on the file of this Court. The appellant in both the above appeals is one and the same person. He was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 1990 and in O.S. No. 2 of 1990 on the file of Sub Court, Mavelikkara for specific performance of Exts.A2 and A3 agreements for sale. The defendant in both the suits is one and the same person. Both the above suits were dismissed by that Court. Against that judgment and decree, the plaintiff in O.S. No. 2 of 1990 filed A.S. No. 283 of 1997 and the plaintiff in O.S. No. 1 of 1990 filed A.S. No. 285 of 1997. Both the above appeals were dismissed by this Court by the R.P.91/10 in A.S.285/97 & 98/10 in A.S.283/97 common judgment dated 15.10.2009. The Trial Court dismissed both the above suits on finding that Exts.A2 and A3 sale agreements were not intended or purported to be sale agreements but only as security for a loan amount of Rs. 60,000/- availed by the defendants brother, D. Philip.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that DW2, who was examined as a scribe who prepared Ext.B1 document was not the real scribe who had prepared Ext.B1 document which was revealed on investigation by the Police in connection with a private complaint filed by the petitioner''s mother. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further submitted that the Trial Court as well as this Court relied on Ext.B1 document on the basis of the evidence of DW2 and passed the decree against the review petitioner.
When the defendant was examined as DW1, she deposed that Ext.B1 is an agreement executed by the mother of the plaintiff after execution of Exts.A2 and A3. DW1 further deposed that Ext.B1 was written in the handwriting of the same scribe who R.P.91/10 in A.S.285/97 & 98/10 in A.S.283/97 prepared Exts.A2 and A3. DW1 deposed that the mother of the plaintiff signed Ext.B1 in her presence and the plaintiff did not sign it as he was in Dubai at that time, in Ext.B1 it is stated that the plaintiff at present has no intention to get sale deed executed as per Exts.A2 and A3 agreements, if the defendant repays Rs. 60,000/- within one year the plaintiff will issue receipt and if defendant fails to repay Rs. 60,000/- within one year, the plaintiff is entitled to file suit for specific performance of agreements for sale. The plaintiff has not taken any steps to examine the mother of the plaintiff to disprove the contents in Ext.B1. On appreciating the evidence on record, this Court found that since the mother of the plaintiff was present at the time of execution of Exts.A2, A3 and B1, representing the plaintiff and as the plaintiff failed to disprove Ext.B1, the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in finding that Exts.A2 and A3 were executed as security for loan obtained by D. Philip from the plaintiff and the parties treated Exts.A2 and A3 only as security for the loan and not agreement for sale. This Court did not rely on the evidence of DW2 to find that Ext.B1 is the R.P.91/10 in A.S.285/97 & 98/10 in A.S.283/97 genuine document. Therefore even if DW2 examined before the Trial Court was not the real scribe who prepared Exts.A2, A3 and B1 that will not in any way affect the decision of the case. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of re-hearing and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that the judgment pronounced by this Court is final and departure from this principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Since there is no such circumstance to review the judgment in the above appeals, I am of the view that both the R.Ps. are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly R.P.Nos. 91 and 98 of 2010 are dismissed without costs.