IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 880 of 2008(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.1918/2007 Dated 29/07/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NARAYANAN, S/O. THACHU KURUP, KODANGATTU HOUSE, ERAVAKKAD P.O., KUMARANELLUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ MUHAMMED @ ASSAN MUHAMMED, S/O. KUNHALAN KOTTAVALAPPIL, KUMARANELLOOR AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. ADV. SRI.K.SREEHARI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P. NO. 880/2008 ORDER ON I.A. 682/08 IN R.P.NO. 880/2008 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 11.11.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- R.P.No. 880 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 ORDER This Review Petition is preferred with a prayer to review the judgement dated 29.06.2007. 2. Heard the learned counsels for both sides. After applying my mind totally to the facts of the case and the provisions contained, I had taken a decision whereby I held that the decree holder if he wants to invoke the benefit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, he may do it in appropriate proceedings or by amending the execution application as permissible under law. I have considered the different provisions and given my view on the subject. It cannot be termed as an error apparent on face of the record for the reason that it is my view. It is always amenable to be corrected by appropriate forms. Therefore I find no ground to review the judgment. Therefore the review petition is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm