IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 813 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.526/1996 Dated 05/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/ APPELLANTS ----------------------------------------------------- 1. KOMALA, W/O.VETTIYATTIL VEETTIL RAMAKRISHNAN, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR DIST. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.VETTIYATTIL VEETTIL APPU, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, P.O.OLLUR, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ NARAYANAN NAIR, NEPHEW OF THOTTUPURATHU VEETTIL NARAYANAN NAIR, AMMAYANNUKKARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST. ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. ------------------------------------- R.P No. 813 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2011 J U D G M E N T This is a petition filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 05-06-2009. The defendant who lost before the courts below in a suit for specific performance has come up in Second Appeal. On appraisal of the evidence on record the courts below decreed suit in favour of the respondent. All the contentions raised by the petitioner were duly considered in the judgment dated 05-06-2009. Now the arguments advanced is that in the judgment sought to be reviewed, this court has not considered undue hardships caused to the defendant, inequity in decreeing the suit and undue advantage obtained to the plaintiff. The submission is devoid of any merit. 2. I have considered all the contentions and arrived at a finding against the petitioner, though none of the contentions now advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was taken before the courts below. Neither is RP No. 813 of 2009 -2- there any evidence in this regard. Whereas the plea taken by the petitioner was denial of execution of the agreement for sale which was duly considered by the courts below and arrived at a finding of fact against the review petitioner. I find no error in the Judgment to be rectified in review, Hence review petition is dismissed. Sd//- P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. AMG //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE