R. Vijayalekshmy Amma and Jayaroop vs Jayasree Rajendran, Jayachandran Nair alias Joy and Jayachithra

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This is an application seeking review of judgment dated 8.12.2010. The review petition is filed by Respondents 1 and 2, who are Defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for partition. They were Respondents 1 and 2 respectively in F.A.O.337/10, which was decided as per the judgment sought to be reviewed.

2.The trial court had dismissed the Plaintiff''s application for temporary injunction. When the FAO was taken up for consideration, we recorded that there was effective consideration of the materials by the court below, but we also found that if the findings therein are permitted to stand, they may have an impact, either way, on the trial of the main RP.316/11 matter. In that situation, the second Defendant, who was the second Respondent in the FAO, had submitted before us, through counsel, that he shall not alienate or encumber the property pending the suit. We recorded that submission made on behalf of the second Defendant/second Respondent in the FAO and set aside the order passed by the court below on the temporary injunction application and directed that the suit be tried untrammelled by anything stated in the order issued by the trial court on the temporary injunction application. The attempt was only to ensure that there is a free and fair trial untrammelled by the view taken by the trial court on the temporary injunction application. The property was preserved only by recording the undertaking of the second Respondent and not by this Court passing any order.

This review petition is filed by the aforesaid second Defendant and the first Defendant. We may note that the first Defendant who was the first Respondent and the second Defendant, the second Respondent in the FAO, were represented through two different counsel in the FAO. Now, they have joined to file an application for review of what is nothing but recording an undertaking by one of the parties in open court through counsel. We also do not find any ground in this review petition impeaching the undertaking or even saying that no such undertaking was made. By merely recording an undertaking as was made in open court and minuted by us in the order, the court does not pass any order of temporary injunction, but has only recorded the undertaking given by the parties in court. Obviously, we see no ground to review the judgment.

For the aforesaid reasons, the review petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.

At this point of time, learned Counsel for the review Petitioners submitted that the court below may be directed to dispose of the suit within a time limit. In fact, we have indicated in the last paragraph of the judgment sought to be reviewed that the court below will consider the request of the parties for expeditious disposal of the suit. We are told that the issues are likely to be settled on 6.6.2011. Therefore, following pre-trial steps, we are of the view that the matter can be finished off in six months. Accordingly, the court below will make an endeavour to dispose of the matter finally at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 6.6.2011.