High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
PATHUMMAL BEEVI SUBARATHU BEEVI v. JAFFARKHAN, S/O.SAYU RAWTHER - WP(C) No. 2502 of 2007(W)  RD-KL 1716 (22 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 2502 of 2007(W)
1. PATHUMMAL BEEVI SUBARATHU BEEVI,
1. JAFFARKHAN, S/O.SAYU RAWTHER,
2. NABEENA JAFFARKHAN,
3. BAHADOOR, S/O.JAFFERKHAN,
4. BAHARDOORSHA, S/O.JAFFERKHAN,
5. BEENA THANKAMMA, D/O.NABEENA,
6. RANITHA, D/O.NABEENA,
7. UDUMANKANNU RAWTHER BADARUDEEN,
8. MOHAMMED UMMAL, W/O.
12. K.JAMEELA BEEVI,
13. A.ANSAR BEEVI,
16. RAHUMA BEEVI PATHUMMAI BEEVI,
17. PATHUMMAL BEEVI ARIFFA BEEVI,
18. PATHUMMAL BEEVI RASIYA BEEVI.
19. HANEEFA SALIM, PLAVILA VEEDU,
20. PATHUMMAL BEEVI AHURA BEEVI,
21. PATHUMMAL BEEVI, ATHAMMA BEEVI,
22. PATHUMMAL BEEVI, LABILLA BEEVI,
23. PATHUMMAL BEEVI SHAILA BEEVI,
24. PATHUMMAL BEEVI SOJA BEEVI,
25. SUHARA BEEVI, W/O.UMMERKHAN,
26. BAIJU, S/O.UMMER KHAN,
27. BIJU, S/O.UMMERKHAN,
28. KAUSI, W/O.SHAJAHAN,
29. PREETHI(MINOR) D/O.SHAJAHAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.D.JAYACHANDRAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.W.P.(C)NO.2502 OF 2007
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2007
Petitioner is third defendant in O.S.270/1965 on the file of Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara. Respondents are plaintiffs and other defendants. A final decree was passed originally on 14.3.1985. Petitioner executed the final decree by filing E.P.79/1985 and got the property allotted to him, separated. The final decree was subsequently set aside as per order dated 4.11.1992. Thereafter, another Commission was appointed and on the basis of the report another final decree was passed. Petitioner filed I.A.327/06, an application to review the final decree contending that when the report originally submitted by Commissioner was not set aside, Court is not competent to appoint another Commission or accept the report and pass a final decree and therefore subsequent final decree is illegal and is to be reviewed. Under Ext.P6 order, learned Munsiff dismissed the application. It is challenged in this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for petitioner was heard.
3. Though learned Counsel appearing for petitioner W.P.(c)2502/07 2 vehemently argued that learned Munisff did not properly consider the review application and therefore Ext.P6 order is to be quashed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in Ext.P6 order. When a final decree is passed, after the original final decree was set aside ,if petitioner is aggrieved by the revised final decree, remedy of petitioner is to file an appeal as against the final decree. I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P6 order. This petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to challenge the final decree in appeal.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGEAcd W.P.(c)2502/07 3
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.