J P BUILDERS Vs. A RAMADAS RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have disposed of A.S.No.708 of 2008 (preferred by 1st respondent/Plaintiff), A.S.No.946 of 2009 (preferred by Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2) and W.P.No.23405 of 2009 filed by 1st Respondent/Plaintiff by our common judgment dated 23.2.2010.

(2.) STATING that the order of the Division Bench suffers from error apparent on the face of record, that there is total lack of jurisdiction and the Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction, Review Petitioners/Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred these review petitions seeking review of the Judgment in A.S.No.708 of 2008 and W.P.No.23405 of 2009. Even though it was a common judgment, no review is sought for in respect of A.S.No.946 of 2009.

(3.) IT was stated before us that based upon the Judgment, the Plaintiff has deposited Rs.7,84,13,020/- to the credit of O.S.No.336 of 2006 and Bank has also filed application for payment out before the trial Court (Principal District Court, Chengalpattu) and trial Court has also ordered payment out and issued Cheque in favour of Indian Bank on 25.3.2010. Placing reliance upon STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANOTHER VS. TOULVI KIBAMI AND ANOTHER ((2003) 8 SCC 671), the learned counsel Mr.R.Thiagarajan submitted that the impugned judgment was already acted upon and the Review Application is not maintainable. The Plaintiff had only deposited the amount. The major part of the execution of decree is execution of the sale deed. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Review Petition is not maintainable and we have proceeded to consider the merits of the contentious points raised in the review applications.