BALACHANDRAN NAIR Vs. SIMON AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE review petitions have been filed seeking review of the judgment dated 19.2.2015 in O.P.(C) Nos. 263 and 405 of 2015.

(2.) THE challenge in the Original Petitions was that after having pronounced the judgment, the court below was not competent to re -open the hearing of the appeal allowing one of the parties to address the court. The more pointed argument was that a petition under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not lie. There was not even a proper petition before the court below and the court below was not justified in rehearing the appeal. In support of his contention, the petitioner had relied on the entries in the B Diary and pointed out that the matter was posted for hearing. The matter was heard on several occasions and it is not as if the parties were not heard in the matter. Whatever that be, according to the learned counsel, it was not possible for the court below in a petition under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code to re -open the matter.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents in O.P. (c) 263 of 2015 pointed out that it is true that a petition under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code is incompetent. But the averments in the affidavit in support of the petition to re -open the matter clearly show that the petition fall within Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code and the mere quoting of a wrong provision may not be a ground to deny justice to the parties.