IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2009 / 8TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 683 of 2009(T) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & ORDER IN WPC.12997/2009 Dated 09/06/2009 REVIEW PETITIONERS: PETITIONERS 1. K.SAVITHRI, AGED 62 D/O.RAMAN NAMBIAR, MYLOTH HOUSE, VELOM, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.13/344D, K.T.V.APRTMENTS POORATHARA ROAD, PAVANGAD, KOZHIKODE DIST. 2. M.V.MADHAVI AMMA, AGED 68, D/O.RAMAN NAMBIAR, MEETHALE VEETIL, CHERRAPURAM , VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 3. M.V.RAJEEVAN, AGED 48 S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, MEETHALE VEETIL, CHERAPURAM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU, SRI. SIMI.A. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1. STATE REP.BY S.I.OF POLICE, KUTTIADI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DIST, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE RURAL, VATAKARA, 3. O.GOPALAKURUP, AGED 70. S/O.RAMAN NAMBIAR, KUZHICHALIL HOUSE, CHERAPURAM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 4. VENU, AGED 40 S/O,.O.GOPALAKURUP,KUZHICHALIL HOUSE, CHERAPURAM, VATAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.A. SALIM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 683 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C) 12997/2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This review petition is filed by the petitioners in the writ petition. W.P.(C) 12997 of 2009 was filed seeking police protection. We find that the petitioner had instituted a suit and a decree was passed and eventually, possession was also taken. But there was a doubt as to whether the disputed property was also taken in to possession taking note of the fact that a suit is filed by the respondent and it was represented on behalf of the respondent that an interlocutory application was also filed alleging that the petitioners in the writ petition have trespassed into the property and no orders have been obtained by the third respondent yet. In those circumstances, we directed that appropriate orders to be passed in the said interlocutory application and thereafter subject to the orders that may be passed by the civil court petitioner can approach the police if the order is in his favour. This revision petition is filed to bring to the notice of this Court that the submission that an interlocutory application was pending before the court is wrong and it is only after the disposal of the writ petition that the R.P. 683/2009 2 interlocutory application was filed and thus, there is thus a misrepresentation made by the respondent. In the circumstances, we review the order and direct the first respondent to afford necessary protection to the petitioner. The review petition is allowed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. KNC/-