IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 RP.No. 1001 of 2010() --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.50/2008 Dated 14/09/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ P.V.AYYAPPAN EZHUTHASSAN, S/O.NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN, VENGERI AMSOM, KARUVASSERI DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY SRI. T.KRISHNANUNNI,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SRI.S.A.SAJU. RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ---------------------------------- POOTHARAMANNA VARIYATH SIVADASAN, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY VARASSIYAR, VENGOOR AMSOM, CHEMMANIYODE DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.1001 of 2010 in R.S.A. No. 50 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010. ORDER In this review petition, the review petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 14.9.2010 in R.S.A.50 of 2008 mainly on two grounds. The first ground urged is that the observation of this court in paragraph 21 of the judgment was not covered by the pleadings and therefore the review petitioner was not able to meet the point properly. The second contention is that the dispute is not between the landlord and tenant, but between the assignor and assignee and as between them the plea of estoppel may be available to the review petitioner. On these grounds, it is pointed out that, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and the judgment may be reviewed. 2. There is no merit in the review petition. All that this court had done was to take note of the statutory R.P.1001/2010. 2 provision while observing that the court below has omitted to note the impact of section 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. This court has not concluded that point and had left it open to the lower court to decide the matter afresh. So is the plea regarding the dispute between the assignor and the assignee. This court has not concluded any of those matters and left the matters to be decided by the court below. However, in the light of the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, it is made clear that the parties are free to amend the pleadings raising such grounds as are available to them and adduce further evidence, if they are so advised. With the above observations, this review petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.