Shibi vs P. Dileep Kumar

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This application is to review the judgment dated 12.11.2012 in R.S.A. No. 1353 of 2012 whereby the judgment and decree of the learned second Additional Sub Judge, Ernakulam in A.S.No.9 of 2012 was confirmed.

The main grounds for review are that the petitioners do not have any access to the plaint C schedule and that the judgment and decree of this Court stands in the way of petitioners gaining access through plaint A schedule. There is also a contention that records in O.S.No.939 of 2012 filed by the petitioners would not justify the grant of decree in favour of the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a fervent plea to reopen the judgment and decree of this Court on the grounds aforesaid.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents as well.

So far as the challenge made to the judgment and decree on the strength of the documents in O.S.No.939 of 2012 is concerned, I must notice that O.S.No.288 of 2007 was for a decree for prohibitory injunction against trespass into the plaint A schedule. This Court observed in the judgment sought to be reviewed in paragraph 17 that in the light of what is stated in the judgment it is not necessary for this Court to go into the question of title claimed by the petitioners over the disputed portion of plaint A schedule. It is also observed that the second appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the right if any of the petitioners to seek relief on the strength of the title they claimed. As such, a review of the judgment and decree based on the records in O.S.No.939 of 2012 relied by the petitioners is not necessary or warranted.

The next is concerning the difficulty of the petitioners and more particularly, the second petitioner for access to the plaint C schedule. Learned counsel has submitted that the second petitioner and her children are not able to enter the plaint C schedule.

The second petitioner is a pendente lite purchaser. It is seen from paragraph 16 of the judgment sought to be reviewed that while hearing the second appeal, a plea was made to provide some access to the plaint C schedule through the plaint A schedule. This Court, in paragraph 16 of the judgment considered the above request and found that since the second petitioner is a pendente lite transferee, no equitable relief could be granted to her in this case. This Court has also stated the reason for taking that view. There is no reason why that finding should be reviewed. A review should come within the limited scope of Rule 1 of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is neither an appeal nor an opportunity to re-hear the appeal. I do not find any justifiable reason to review the judgment of this Court. In the light of that, request for review cannot be entertained.

The application is dismissed subject to whatever that is stated in the judgment dated 12.11.2012 in R.S.A. No. 1353 of 2012.