Review petitions lack merit if no valid grounds are presented to challenge previous court orders.

ORDER

Dated : 20^th January, 2026 Pratheep Kumar, J.

The appellant in Mat.Appeal 37/2017 filed this Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC, praying for setting aside the judgment of this Court dated 24.1.2024 in the above Mat.Appeal or in the alternative to remand the case to the Family Court, Kollam for fresh disposal.

2. The above Mat.Appeal was filed by the defendant in O.S.343/2000 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2016 directing him to return 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present market value to the respondents/plaintiffs. The Review Petition filed by the plaintiffs in the suit namely, R.P.1245/2023 praying for the inclusion of the claim of 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments which was omitted from the judgment and decree referred to above, was also considered along with the Mat.Appeal and disposed of by a common judgment dated 24.1.2024. As per the above judgment, this Court dismissed the appeal, but allowed the Review Petition and directed him to return the value of 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondents, in addition to Rs.1,75,000/- which was omitted to be mentioned by the Family Court

2026:KER:6223 in its judgment dated 31.10.2016.

3. In this Review Petition, the main grievance raised is with regard to the eligibility of the respondents/plaintiffs in getting the value of 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments. According to the review petitioner, the claim of 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments raised by the plaintiffs ought not to have been allowed by this Court in its judgment dated

24.1.2024.

4. The very same issue was elaborately considered in the impugned judgment. In paragraph 8 of the above judgment this Court has referred to the admission made by the review petitioner before the Family Court that he is ready to return 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value to the respondents and held that the said admission is binding on him. In the said judgment it was further held that the review petitioner has not disputed the claim of return of 43 sovereigns of gold ornaments and further held that, the same was omitted to be mentioned by the Family Court in its judgment under challenge. Therefore, this Court after elaborately discussing the rival contentions, found that the omission to mention the gold ornaments in the judgment of the Family Court was a bona fide one and that is why by allowing R.P.1245/2023 filed by the respondents the said claim was allowed by this Court. The

2026:KER:6223 present Review Petition is practically to review the order of this Court in R.P.1245/2023, which is not at all maintainable, not only on technical grounds but also on merits. There are absolutely no valid grounds to review the judgment of this Court dated 24.1.2024 and as such this Review Petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Review Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-