IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2011 / 5TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1094 of 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN RSA.427/2010 Dated 04/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): AAPPELLANTS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUVARNAKUMAR, S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 2. SUDHEESHNAKUMAR,S/O.KUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 3. SUPRABHA (SURAJA KUMARI) D/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 4. SUPRIYA KUMAR, S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 5. SUKHILAL, S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 6. SULABHA, D/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. 7. SETHUKUMARI, D/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, 'SUKUMARAMANDIRAM',MANGAD CHERRY,MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. R.P. NO.1094/2010 RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- AJAYAGOSH, KOCHUMEDAYIL VEEDU, MANGADCHERRY, MANGAD VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, ALONG WITH RP NO. 1095 OF 2010 THE COURT ON 25/01/2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No. 1094 of 2010 in R.S.A. No.427 of 2010 & R.P. No. 1095 of 2010 in R.S.A. No. 489 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2011. ORDER R.S.A. Nos. 427 and 489 were disposed of by a common judgment dated 4.6.2010. According to the review petitioners, this court had proceeded on the wrong premises that no objection had been filed by the petitioners herein against the re-survey plan. In fact an objection was filed and they have sought to produce the copy of the same. It is contended that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore the judgment may be reviewed. 2. At the outset itself it can be said that there is no merit in the review petitions at all. Both the courts below on an independent evaluation of the evidence had come to an identical conclusion and that was affirmed by this court in Second Appeals. Both the courts below have placed considerable reliance on Ext.C3 plan for cogent and convincing reasons and this court on a perusal of the plan was convinced that the conclusions arrived at by the courts R.P. 1094 & 1095/2010. 2 below are justified. Both the courts below found that the western and northern boundaries shown in Ext.C3 plan can be accepted. The re-survey plan had been finalized in 1971. The lower appellate court has taken note of the fact that no objection was filed against the resurvey plan. No reasons are given as to why the objection now produced, which was available, was not produced before the courts below. Whatever that be, there is nothing to indicate that Ext.C3 plan is either wrong or contrary to facts. It was on the basis of Ext.C3 plan, reliefs were granted to the plaintiffs in one of the suits. No grounds are made out to review the judgment dated 4.6.2010 in the Second Appeals. The Review Petitions are without merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.