High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 04 KL CK 0147

Afsal Fazalu Rahman vs Noora Muneer

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 29 April 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S.Dias, J · C.Jayachandran, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Petition (C) No. 220 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

V.G.Arun, J

1.

The review petitioner had filed the original petition challenging the order by which his claim petition, E.A.No.654 of 2017 in E.P.No.152 of 2016 in O.S.No.979 of 1993 was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. While dismissing the execution application, the executing court directed the decree holders to file a petition under Order 21 Rule 97 for removal of obstruction and the rights of the claim petitioner to raise a claim for value of improvements alone was reserved. By the judgment sought to be reviewed, the original petition was disposed of directing the petitioner to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97, without prejudice to his right to avail the remedy under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC. It was also observed that, having decided the question of maintainability, the execution court could not have proceeded further and directed the decree holder to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97, reserving the petitioner's right to improvements alone.

3.

Learned Counsel for the review petitioner contended that the judgment is bad by reason of an apparent error, inasmuch as the finding of this Court that, the direction to file application under Order 21 Rule 97 will not take away the petitioner's right to avail the remedy under Order 21 Rule 99 of CPC, is being interpreted to hold that the only remedy now available to the petitioner is to file an application under Order 21 Rule 99, after he is dispossessed.

4.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no error in the judgment, let alone any error apparent on its face.

Having heard the Counsel on either side, I am of the definite opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Needless to say that the observation in the judgment does not have the effect of confining the petitioner's right to the filing of application under Order 21 Rule 99 alone and the petitioner can resort to other remedies, if any available.

The review petition is dismissed accordingly.