IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 184 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19566/2007 Dated 21/11/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- BIJU PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. VAKKOM PURUSHOTHAMAN, AGED 48, RESIDING AT BINDHU, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------- SARADAMMA, D/O. BHAGAVATHIKUTTY AMMA, AGED 82, RESIDING AT BHAGAVATHI VILASAM, PTP JUNCTION, KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER P.A.RAMESH KUMAR, S/O.APPUKUTAN NAIR AGED 38 ,RESIDING AT BHAVANA, MANNAMTHALA FROM BHAGAVATHI VILASOM,PTP JUNCTION, KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== R.P. No.184 OF 2008 in W.P.(C)No.19566/2007 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of June 2008 O R D E R This review petition is filed with a prayer to review the judgment passed by this Court on 21.11.2007 in W.P.(C)No.19566 of 2007. The writ petition was filed against the order in a petition filed by the defendant for issuance of a Commission. The court below allowed the application. Against that, Article 227 was invoked. This Court held that in one suit number of Commissions shall not be issued and it will only create confusion rather than resolution. This Court allowed the writ petition reserving the right of the defendant to file an application for remission or setting aside the same. Now the learned counsel for the review petitioner strongly contends before me that admittedly the Commissioner has failed to note the particulars required to be noted and no injustice will be caused by issuance of a Commission and the procedure of remission or setting aside will only protract the proceedings. I cannot agree with the learned counsel for the reason that if Commissions are issued even to the very same Commissioner, it will become an endless process. That is why the courts have held that R.P.No.184/2008 -:2:- successive Commissioners' applications should not be entertained. Suppose there is omission or there is mistake, the law provides remedy for remission or setting aside the Commissioner's report. Therefore, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which requires review. Therefore the review application is rejected. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-