ORDER :

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The 1st respondent in R.F.A.(Misc) No.1 of 2019 has filed this petition for review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. The appeal was allowed as per the judgment dated 28.09.2022, reported as Mohammed v. Mannil Abdul Gadhafi alias Abdul Gadafi Mannil, [2022 (6) KLT 269 : 2022 (4) KLJ 362 : 2022 (6) KHC 369 : 2022 KHC OnLine 761 : MANU/KE/3474/2022]. We later noticed that there occurred a mis-statement of law while we discussed the law laid down by the Apex Court in Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese and others [(2004) 6 SCC 378], which was a divided verdict, and hence the matter was listed as “to be spoken to”. In the meantime, this review petition has been filed.

3. Review is sought on the following grounds :

(i) the claim petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the Sub Court, Ernakulam without there having a detailed enquiry as contemplated in Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code, wherefore the matter should have been remanded for a fresh consideration;

(ii) the 1st respondent failed to discharge his burden to prove that the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner are vitiated;

(iii) the finding that