IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 1156 of 2009(T) -------------------------------- [AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.19394/2009 DATED 28/08/2009] .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- VADAKKE ILLATH YAMUNA,D/O.HARIDAS, THAZHEPADIKKAL,HOUSE NO.350,WARD NO.III, P.O.VALAPPATTANAM, KANNUR-670 010. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU, SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, MR.BRIJESH MOHAN, MR.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR,VALAPATTANAM SUB REGISTRY OFFICE,VALAPPATTANAM.P.O, KANNUR-670 010. 2. ARYAMBALLY NIRMALA,D/O.VASUDEVAN, THAZHEPADIKKAL,P.O.VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR-670 010. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN, R2 BY ADV. MR.P.U.SHAILAJAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- Review Petition No.1156 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) No.19394 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. What is sought to be modified is the observations made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction in the judgment that the petitioner shall independently intimate the pendency of O.S.No.269/09 to her prospective purchaser and despatch of such intimation shall also be produced before the Sub Registrar will cause acute prejudice to the petitioner as any intending purchaser will not be inclined in the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention R.P. No.1156/2009 2 to paragraph 6 of the judgment wherein this Court has recorded the fact that on a suggestion, the petitioner has deposited Rs.2,70,000/- in O.S.No.269/09. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no objection in the respondents withdrawing the amount so that the observations in the concluding part of the judgment could be modified. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that there are ten suits pending before the Sub Court, Thalassery between the parties. Therefore, by merely withdrawing the amount, the entire matter cannot be said to have been settled also. In that view of the matter, it has only to be recorded that there is no apparent error in the observations made in the judgment. The remedy of the petitioner if at all is to file an appeal from the judgment. Therefore, this review petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp