IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 723 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RCR.42/2008 Dated 13/02/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER (APPELLANT RESPONDENT);- ------------------------------- HAMZOO, S/O ABDULLA, SYLCON, KAVITHA THEATRE COMPLEX, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 035, RESIDING AT NOORGEHAN, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULM, KOCHI -17. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.FEROS KHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. M/S KAVITHA THEATRE, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, E.M.JOHNY 2. E.M.JOHNY, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 3. E.M.PAUL, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 4. JOSE MATHEW, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 5. XAVIER MATHEW, EDAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 6. JAMES MATHEW,EDAKKATTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. R.P.NO.723/2008 7. TOMY MATHEW, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 8. MARTIN JOHNY, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 9. E.J.SONY, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. 10. SAJU JOHNY, EDAKKATTUKUDYIL HOUSE, RAMALLOOR, KOTHYAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.THOMAS FOR R5 SRI.JOJO GEORGE FOR R5 SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS FOR R5 SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R1 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R1 SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------- R.P.No.723 OF 2008 IN R.C.R.No.42 OF 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The revision petitioner is the review petitioner. The revision petition was heard and dismissed by this Court. The learned counsel who argued the revision petition did not urge before us all the grounds taken in the R.C.R. Apparently, some of the points which he thought tenable alone were urged. Other grounds, which the learned counsel for the revision petitioner felt untenable, were not argued before us. The present review petition is filed contending that for giving up other points or rather for not arguing other points, the counsel has no instruction from the client. Therefore, the revision petitioner has engaged another lawyer and filed this review petition, to argue the points not urged before us. 2. We think, on the basis of vakalath executed, the lawyer should be conceded freedom to decide which grounds R.P.No.723/2008 2 raised in the revision petition should be argued by him. For giving up some of the points which according to him are untenable, he does not require the consent of the client. If this review petition is entertained, by necessary implication, we will be accepting the above stand of the review petitioner. Hereafter, the counsel will be bound to argue all points raised in the review petition, unless he gets specific instruction from his client not to argue some of the points. Further, if this review petition is entertained, it will amount to conceding that a client can find out a new lawyer to argue before this Court certain points which were not urged by the counsel engaged by him in the original proceeding, apparently, for the reason that the learned counsel thought they were not tenable. So, in principle, this review petition is ill conceived and we feel that this is an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, it is dismissed in limine. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE) ps