Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Sumesh Devadas – Appellant
Versus
Jisha Jacob – Respondent
RP NO. 603 OF 2026 | Mat.Appeal NO.812 OF 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandra Maria Robin, Simon A. Muthalaly

A review petition is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to adjudicate disputes regarding the satisfaction of a decree, which must be addressed through appropriate execution proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner sought a review of a High Court judgment asserting factual inaccuracies regarding the award of interest on the value of gold ornaments by the Family Court. The Court acknowledged the error that no interest had been granted by the lower court and consequently ordered the deletion of the phrase "with interest" from paragraph 16. The key issue centered on correcting a factual error in the judgment and addressing contentions regarding the satisfaction of the decree. The Court clarified that the question of whether a decree or part thereof had been satisfied must be agitated before an appropriate forum in separate proceedings, rather than through a review petition. The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sathish Ninan, J.

In paragraph 16 of the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is observed that the Family Court had awarded interest on the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, being the value of the gold ornaments. By way of the review petition, it is brought to our notice that the Family Court had not awarded any interest on the value of the gold ornaments. In light of the above, the words "with interest" occurring in the last sentence of paragraph 16 of the judgment sought to be reviewed shall stand deleted.

2. The next contention is that the decree or part thereof has been satisfied. Such contention is to be urged before the appropriate forum and in appropriate proceedings. It is not liable to be entertained in this proceeding.

RP NO.603 of 2026 No further directions are called for.

The Review Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32401

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMSathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJSumesh Devadas – AppellantVersusJisha Jacob – RespondentRP NO. 603 OF 2026 | Mat.Appeal NO.812 OF 2015

A review petition is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to adjudicate disputes regarding the satisfaction of a decree, which must be addressed through appropriate execution proceedings.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Sathish Ninan, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ
Sumesh Devadas – Appellant
Versus
Jisha Jacob – Respondent
RP NO. 603 OF 2026 | Mat.Appeal NO.812 OF 2015