IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 477 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.1087/2008 Dated 19/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ APPELLANT:- --------------------------------------- GOPALA PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, SON OF KOCHAN PILLAI, REISIDING AT PUTHEN PURAYIL VEEDU, THEVALAPPURAM EAST MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------ 1. CHACKO, SON OF KUNCHANDY, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT ONATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAPPURAM EAST MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE, 2. MATHEW, AGED 45 YEARS, SON OF CHACKO, RESIDING AT ONATTUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAPPURAM EAST MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE. 3. MARIYAMMA, AGED 38 YEARS, WIFE OF MATHEW, RESIDING AT ONATTUVILA, PUTHEN VEEDU, THEVALAPPURAM EAST MURI, PUTHOOR VILLAGE. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== R.P. No. 477 of 2009 in R.S.A. No. 1087 of 2008 ========================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT This is a petition filed by the plaintiff in the suit for reviewing the judgment dated 19.11.2008 in R.S.A. No. 1087 of 2008 which was disposed of at the stage of admission after hearing the counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants as well. The findings recorded by the courts below were held to be findings of fact from which no question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arose for decision in this Second Appeal. The plaintiff had come to the court concealing the existence of the pathway passing through the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property and used by the defendant. Nevertheless, this Court partly allowed the Second Appeal declaring the title of the plaintiff/review petitioner over the plaint schedule property obtained under Ext.A1 settlement deed and also declaring the possession of the review petitioner over the said property, but excluding the area covered by the pathway R.P. No. 477/2009 : 2 : passing through the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property and regarding the existence of which was suppressed by the petitioner. If at all there is any mistake in the judgment, that is only in the latter part of the judgment which says that the questions of law are answered in the affirmative. Actually, those questions formulated were and ought to have been answered in the negative. The judgment will stand corrected accordingly. I do not find any good ground for reviewing the judgment. This review petition is accordingly dismissed. 2. The belated attempt of the petitioner/plaintiff to seek withdrawal of the suit also cannot be granted in a review petition which itself is not maintainable. Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P. No. 477/2009 : 3 : V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== C. M. Appln. No. 348 of 2009 in R.P. No. 477 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. ORDER This is a petition to condone the delay of 159 days in filing the revision. Even though the petition is opposed, in view of the proposed disposal of the review petition, I am inclined to condone the delay. This petition is accordingly allowed. Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv R.P. No. 477/2009 : 4 :