IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 RP.No. 396 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT/ORDER IN SA.367/2002 DATED 01/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN APPEAL PLAINTIFF IN O.S.743/1998 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.G. GEETHA BAI, WIFE OF C.R. RAJATATAANAM, RAJ NIVAS, HOUSE NO.7/355/B-B-A-6, GCDA STAFF HOUSING COLONY, KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.R.MAYA KRISHNAN RESPONDENT/APPELLANT DEFENDANT IN OS. 743/1998. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHARA, KOCH-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. MR.JIMMY GEORGE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs RP.No. 396 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE QUERY DATED 16/03/2011 AND THE ANSWER THEREOF VIDE LETTER DATED 04/04/2011. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE QUERY DATED 16/03/2011 AND THE ANSWER THEREOF VIDE LETTER DATED 08/04/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- R.P. NO.396 OF 2011 in S.A.NO.367 OF 2002 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 O R D E R Review petitioner is the respondent in S.A.No.367/2002, which was preferred by the sole defendant, namely, the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) challenging the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.181/2001 on the file of the VI Additional District Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for a declaration and injunction. The Lower Appellate Court set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court and decreed the suit. In the second appeal preferred by the defendant this Court elaborately heard the contentions raised by the parties, after framing substantial questions of law. This Court, after considering the materials on record and after perusing the documents, concluded that the reversal of the judgment and decree of the trial court is unsustainable in law and facts and that the -2- R.P.No.396/2011 Lower Appellate Court misread and misinterpreted the documents and arrived at wrong conclusions. It is also found that the documents relevant for consideration are read wrongly that lead to the reversal of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. After considering the matter elaborately, this Court set aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court and restored the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. The grounds raised in the review petition are touching the merits of the case. The review petitioner wanted to re-hear the matter on merits. The reasons stated in the review petition are not sufficient for reviewing the judgment and decree passed by this Court. In the result, Review Petition fails and accordingly dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.