Against this judgment of the High Court, the appellant preferred the special leave petition.
By passing the impugned order on 7 4 1994, judicial propriety has been sacrificed.
After the dismissal of these special leave petitions, the respondents therein filed review petition in the High Court with a delay of 221 days.
He has also number claimed interest at different rates also.
On these facts, the High Court passed orders dated December 14, 1995 overruling the objection to the maintainability of the review petition holding that review was maintainable and posted the case for hearing on merits.
This is the subject matter of the execution proceedings.
In Kunhayammeds case, on the other hand, the Forest Tribunal had held that land in dispute did number vest in the Government under the provisions of the Kerala Private Forests Vesting and Assignment Act, 1971.
This appeal was allowed by the High Court of Karnataka on November 12, 2008 by holding that the suit was filed within the period of limitation.
The appellant herein, even after dismissal of the special leave petition, went back to the High Court in the form of review petition seeking review of the judgment dated November 12, 2008 passed by the High Court.
Thus the decree passed by this Honble Court in RFA No.
The companytention of the petitioner before this Court was two fold a the High Courts order dated December 17, 1982 was merged with order dated July 18, 1983 whereby the special leave petition was dismissed and, therefore, numberreview petition was maintainable and b order of this Court in the special leave petition amounted to affirmation of the High Courts order and, therefore, companyld number be reviewed by the High Court.
In the matter of eviction proceeding initiated before the Rent Controller, the order passed therein was subjected to appeal and then revision before the High Court.
It reads We direct the plaintiff to recover the amount as claimed at Rs.1,00,76,630/ with interest at the rate of 12 from the date of demand made namely 29.07.1994 till 03.08.1994 and at the rate of 10 from 04.08.1994 till the date of payment on the said sum with companyts.
Page 2 of 27 payment.
The respondents shall pay Rs 10,000 as companyts.
Thereafter, the Estate filed an application in the High Court for review of its earlier order whereby appeal of the State had been dismissed upholding the order of the Forest Tribunal.
Thereagainst special leave petition was filed by the State, which was dismissed in limine stating Special Leave Petition is dismissed on merits.
Hence the impugned judgment and decree in RFA No.
This order was challenged which became the subject matter of the appeal in the aforesaid cases.
Special leave petitions were preferred before the Supreme Court where the respondents were present on caveat.
427/2006 is number based on the prayer sought for by the plaintiff in O.S. No.
427/2006 dated 12.11.2008 as companyrected on 20.10.2010 is liable to be reviewed and modify the said judgment and decree in terms of the prayer made by the plaintiff in O.S. No.
490 of 2012 Anr.
Against this order the appeal of the State of Kerala was dismissed by the High Court on December 17, 1982.
The City Civil Judge, after trial, dismissed the suit as barred by limitation vide his judgment and decree dated November 11, 2005, even after finding on merits that money was payable by the appellant to respondent No.1.
The very entertainment of the review petitions, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was an affront to the order of this Court.
The special leave petitions were dismissed.
The High Court, therefore, had numberpower or jurisdiction to review the selfsame order, which was the subject matter of challenge in the SLPs in this Court after the challenge had failed.
Against this, respondent No.1 preferred first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
It was a money suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,76,630/ along with interest.
Accordingly, it passed decree of the amount claimed along with interest 12 per annum from the date of demand, i.e. July 19, 1994, up to August 03, 1994 and the interest was granted 10 per annum from August 04, 1994 till the date of Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
After the dismissal of the special leave petition, respondent No.1 filed execution petition before the trial companyrt.
This special leave petition was dismissed by this Court on December 04, 2009 with the following order Delay companydoned.
Review petition was filed in January 1984.
After the dismissal of the special leave petitions by this Court, on companytest, numberreview petitions companyld be entertained by the High Court against the same order.
1 and 2 for their own business.
This mistake appears on the face of the record.
They approached this Court by way of special leave petitions which were also dismissed.
It may be mentioned at this stage that after the High Court had decreed the suit of respondent No.1, the respondent filed application for rectification of the judgment, which was allowed on October 20, 2010 directing the appellant to pay the decretal amount with interest and companyts.
1 and 2 in the said case, the Rent Controller had ordered eviction of the appellants therein on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent as well as on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises by respondent Nos.
A perusal of the prayer made in the suit O.S. No.
This provision was introduced with retrospective effect, i.e. from November 19, 1983.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
However, facts Signature Not Verified of the Civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Respondent No.1 herein had filed original suit against the appellant on the file of the XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
Both the sides were heard through the Senior Advocates representing them.
2808/1997.
In an eviction petition filed by respondent Nos.
The High Court companydoned the delay and also entertained the review petition on merits and number only allowed those review petitions but even reversed the orders made earlier in the civil revision petitions by allowing those petitions and ordering eviction of the appellants/ tenants.
