Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29876
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
ALPHONSA MATHEW – Appellant
Versus
LILLY – Respondent
RP 898 2023
S.VINOD BHAT, ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN, GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R
Litigants must respect valid civil court decrees and cannot seek unrelated relief through writ petitions if it contradicts existing judgments.
Headnote:
Review - Property Law - N/A - The court reviewed a prior judgment allowing a petition which sought relief contrary to a valid civil court decree, emphasizing the need to uphold the integrity of existing judgments and dismissing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
A third-party review petitioner sought to challenge a previous order directing the consideration of applications concerning land boundaries that had already been determined by a civil court decree, claiming it bypassed the valid findings of that decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous writ petition was an attempt to ignore a civil court's decree, stating parties cannot bypass established judgments, leading to the decision to vacate the prior order and dismiss the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the review petition was justified in challenging the order of the previous court which apparently disregarded the findings of a valid civil decree regarding land boundaries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that litigants must respect and not circumvent valid civil court decrees, reaffirming the judicial principle that prior judgments must be honored in subsequent proceedings.
Final Decision: The previous order was reviewed and vacated, and the writ petition was dismissed.
O R D E R
Dated this the 04th day of September, 2023 This Review Petition has been filed by a third party, by name Alphonsa Mathew, who is the 10th defendant in O.S. No. 1794/1989 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner that, as per order dated 09.05.2023 in W.P. (C) No. 15444/2023, this court directed respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (C) No. 15444/2023 to consider Exts. P4 and P5 applications filed by the writ petitioner within a period of forty-five days. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner further that, as per the decree passed in Anneure-A2 judgment in AS. No. 73/2000 on the files of the Sub Court, Ernakulam, arose out of decree and judgment in O.S.No. 1794/1989 the extent of land entitled by the writ petitioner as per Ext. C1 plan is confined to property excluding the northern and western sides of the defendants’ property which are given up by the writ petitioner. Knowing this aspect fully well the writ petitioner had approached this court to fix the boundaries of their property inclusive of the portion of property found to be excluded by Annexre-A3 decree. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the review petitioner sough review of the judgment and dismissal of the Writ Petition.
2. On perusal of the records available, it is discernible that in the Writ Petition, even after getting delivery of the property covered by Annexre-A3 judgment as per the proceedings of Ext.P1 report of the Amin, effecting delivery of the property covered by Annexure-A3 after identifying and measuring of the property covered by Anneure-A3, the writ petitioner obtained direction to consider Exts.P4 and P5 applications to measure the property which was specifically excluded by the appellate decree in A.S. No. 73/2000. On perusal of the prayers in this Writ Petition along with Exts.P4 and P5, the submission appears to be correct. In fact, litigating parties cannot be permitted to bypass a valid decree of a civil court by filing Writ Petition and seeking relief which was eventually negatived by the civil court, in the Writ Petition.
In view of the above, the judgment passed in W.P. (C)
No. 15444/2023, sought to be reviewed in this matter at the instance of the 10th defendant in O.S. No. 1794/1989 and A.S. No. 73/2000 is liable to be allowed in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the order stands reviewed and vacated. In consequence thereof in W.P. (C) No. 15444/2023 stands dismissed.
Append copy of this order along with the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 15444/2023.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE
2022 OF 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure-5 COPY OF SURVEY NUMBERWISE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS DATED
29-12-2022 OF 5TH RESPONDENT (THANDAPER NO. 2100)
Annexure-6 COPY OF SURVEY NUMBERWISE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS DATED
29-12-2022 OF 5TH RESPONDENT (THANDAPER NO. 2098)
Annexure-7 COPY OF SURVEY NUMBERWISE LIST OF TRANSACTIONS DATED
29-12-2022 OF 5TH RESPONDENT (THANDAPER NO. 2103)
Annexure-8 COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. KL07022112592/2022 DATED 06-08-2022 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure-9 COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 31-05-2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER R.T. I.ACT Annexure-10 COPY OF NOTICE NO. S10-9240/2016 DATED 06-06-2023 OF
4TH RESPONDENT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
