Kerala High Court
Kombukulam Kuniyil Kunhammad vs Kunhalukkandy Moidu on 8 October, 2013
Author: Babu Mathew P.Joseph
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Babu Mathew P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935
CRP.No. 674 of 2013 ()
-----------------------
(R.P.I.A.NO.899/2013 IN O.S.NO.79/2008 OF SUB COURT, VADAKARA DATED 8/10/2013)
PETITIONER/REV.PETITIONER/DEFENDANT :
------------------------------------------------------------------
KOMBUKULAM KUNIYIL KUNHAMMAD, S/O. MOIDU,
AGED 66 YEARS, KARTHIKAPALLYAMSOM DESOM,
VATAKARA TALUK.
BY SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI,SENIOR ADVOCATE
ADVS. SMT.P.A.SHEEJA
SRI.SAJU.S.A
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KUNHALUKKANDY MOIDU,
S/O KUNHABDULLA, AGED 67 YEARS,
PURAMERI AMSOM DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN:673 503.
THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JJ.
....................................................................
CRP No.674 of 2013
....................................................................
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2013.
O R D E R
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This revision is against an order by which the court below has dismissed an application for review of the judgment, insofar as it awarded costs.
2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3.We see that decree is pending in appeal before this Court as RFA No.677 of 2013. The grievance of the petitioner/defendant is that having regard to the nature of the findings in the judgment of the court below, the decree awarding entire costs of the plaintiff ought not to have been issued. That is a matter which the petitioner/defendant can urge even by way of cross objection to RFA No.677 of 2013. The question as to the propriety and quantification of costs by the court of first instance is also a matter that would gain attention by the appellate court under CRP 674/13 -2- Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under such circumstances, we do not think that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is called for, insofar as the order impugned in this petition is concerned.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed without prejudice.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg/