ORDER : C. Jayachandran , J. 1. These Review Petitions are carried from a common judgment in Writ Appeal Nos. 111 and 342 of 2023 of a Division Bench of this Court, of which one amongst us was a member. The issue pertains to the Abkari dues of a partnership firm pertaining to the year 1993-1994. The total dues, inclusive of the interest, came to Rs.25,34,412/- which was realised by the sale of the properties of three among the total six partners, namely, Sri. C. Sachidanandan, Sri. T.D. Thampi and Smt. Meena Asokan. Two Writ Petitions were filed, one by C. Sachidanandan (O.P. No.464 of 2010) and the second, by the auction purchaser [W.P.(C) No.11618 of 2010]. The Writ Petition preferred by C. Sachidanandan was dismissed and the one by the auction purchaser was allowed, directing issuance of sale certificate and delivery of property. The said judgment was under challenge before the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals afore referred, both having been preferred by the legal heirs of C. Sachidanandan, who expired after filing the Original Petition. 2. The essential ground of challenge raised by the legal heirs of Sachidanandan is that the entire Abkari dues would be satisfied by the sale of two properties belonging to Thampi and Meena Asokan and therefore, the property of Sachidanandan ought to have been absolved from the liability. The contention is answered by the Division Bench in paragraph no.11, by finding that the sale of the properties were conducted on the same day - that is on 13.08.2007 - at different locations and there was never an occasion to find the dues having been satisfied on the auction of the other two properties. Yet another contention pressed into service by the appellants is that the amounts recovered from the sale of the properties belonging to Meena Asokan and deceased Thampi, itself, would be in excess of the total dues, wherefore, auction proceedings against the property of Sachidanandan should be set aside. The said contention is answered in paragraph no.12 of the judgment under review, again reiterating that the sale took place on the same day, at different locations and one such sale cannot be said to have been conducted prior to the other. The said contention is answered in paragraph no.12 of the judgment under review, again reiterating that the sale took place on the same day, at different locations and one such sale cannot be said to have been conducted prior to the other. The settled principle that the creditor is at liberty to recover the dues from all or any of the debtors according to the former's choice in cases of joint and several liability, was also taken stock of. The third contention of the appellants that Sachidanandan had paid much more than other partners towards Abkari dues is also seen repelled by virtue of the discussion contained in paragraph no.13 of the judgment. It was found that, after the sale of the properties of the three partners, the contribution of each partner has to be reckoned by adding the amount fetched from the sale of each property to the amounts remitted by each other partners, individually. By such reckoning, it was found that the highest contribution is made by Thampi, followed by Meena Asokan and Sachidanandan had only the third place in terms of contribution. Accordingly, the Division Bench found towards the end of paragraph no.13 that the three partners – whose properties were sold – would be entitled to approach the Revenue authorities to get back the amounts in excess of the dues, in proportion to their liability. It was also clarified that the remittances made by each of the said three partners before sale, need not be reckoned, since it is the matter of settlement by and between the partners. 3. The Division Bench thereafter proceeded to issue certain directions, which are confined only to the refund of the excess amount. 4. In these Review Petitions, the ground urged is that the Division Bench had quantified the liability of each partner at Rs.4,22,402/- in paragraph no.14(d). According to the review petitioners, individual remittance to the extent of Rs.9,44,097/- was made by Sachidanandan. Besides Rs.3,42,000/- was fetched by the sale of his property, thus making a total contribution of Rs.12,86,097/-, which amount is admittedly in excess of Rs.4,22,402/- due by each partner to the Excise department. Therefore, the finding in paragraph no.14(f) of the judgment under review that Sachidanandan has paid less than his liability is an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the finding in paragraph no.14(f) of the judgment under review that Sachidanandan has paid less than his liability is an error apparent on the face of the record. The other grounds urged for review are all on merits of the matter, which has already being considered and adjudicated in the judgment under review and hence not referred. 5. Having bestowed our attention to the above specific ground, we find little merit in the same, so as to entertain the instant Review Petitions. The contention as regards the contribution made by Sachidanandan being more than that of other partners has already been considered and repelled in the judgment under review at paragraph no.13. It was found that, after the sale of the properties, the contribution of the partners has to be fixed based on the total contribution, constituted of the individual remittances as well as the amounts fetched in the auction sale of each partner's property. The appellants have chosen to keep a Nelson's eye to that premise, to come up with a ground that the individual contribution of Sachidanandan is much more than the amount due from him. In this regard, it is also relevant to state that the individual remittances made by the partners before the sale has not been considered for the purpose of the refund of the excess amount fetched in auction sale. Such remittances made by the partners, and the claims arising therefrom, is relegated to be decided in appropriate civil proceedings. What has been considered for the purpose of refund is only the excess amount received in the auction sale vis-a-vis, the contribution of each of the three partners, excluding their individual remittance prior to the sale. We therefore cannot appreciate the appellants' ground for review. 6. However, we notice now that directions for refund in favour of Meena Asokan, as also, to the legal heirs of Thampi as contained in clauses (f) to (g) has been made without the said persons in the party array. The course adopted occurs to us, as impermissible. The contribution made by the said two partners or for that matter, the quantification of the amounts due to them cannot be decided in absentia of those partners. The course adopted occurs to us, as impermissible. The contribution made by the said two partners or for that matter, the quantification of the amounts due to them cannot be decided in absentia of those partners. We are, therefore, impelled to do away with directions contained in clauses (f) to (h) and to insert an additional clause (f) as follows: “(f) Notice shall be issued to (i) the legal heirs of Sachidanandan, (ii) the legal heirs of Thampi, (iii) respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Appeal No.111 of 2023 and (iv) Meena Asokan. They shall be given an opportunity of hearing only with respect to the refund of the excess amount. All the above parties will be entitled to address their arguments based on their total contribution for the purpose of refund of excess amount received in the auction sale.” The Revenue Authority concerned will thereafter decide the person or persons to whom the excess amount has to be refunded, as also, the quantum of the amount to be refunded. Having regard to the fact that the auction sale took place in the year 2007, the above direction shall be complied as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of this Order. 7. Barring the above modifications, the rest of the judgment will remain intact. The Registry will issue copies of the modified judgment to the parties. 8. Review Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.