Abusalih v. M.K. Jubairiya

ORDER

Antony Dominic, J.

The respondents in MA No. 439/09 have filed this review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 20/03/2013 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The complaint is regarding the interest that is allowed in the judgment. According to the learned counsel, OP No. 27/05 was dismissed by the Family Court, Kozhikode by its judgment dated 20/8/07. It is stated that the appeal belatedly filed was numbered in 2009 and they received summons only in 2012. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the review petitioners should not have been saddled with liability to pay interest atleast during the period from 2007 to 2012.

2. The verification of the records show that notice on the appeal was issued to the review petitioners/respondents on 19/6/09 and notice was returned with the postal endorsement “addressee not known”. It was thereafter that process was filed and finally served on the petitioners in 2012. Therefore, for the aforesaid delay, the petitioners cannot be faulted. In any case, once the appeal, even after condonation of delay, is admitted and notice is issued, necessarily, it is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore this submission made by the counsel does not merit acceptance.

3. The second contention raised by the learned counsel was regarding the marking of Exts.A4, A5 and A6 in the appeal. He also contended that the finding relying on Ext.A4 that Rs. 75,000/- withdrawn from the Bank was paid to the first review petitioner is erroneous.

4. In our view, legality of marking these documents and the correctness of the conclusions arrived at on the basis of those documents are not errors which are correctable in a review petition and even if there is any illegality, those are to be corrected only in an appeal. In our view, review petitioners have not made out any case warranting review of the judgment.

Review petition is dismissed.