IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 585 of 2011(S) --------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN COC.268/2011 Dated 09/06/2011) REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER -------------------------------- SAVITHRI AMMA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, KAVALAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 'LAKSHMI NILAYAM', KAVALAPPARA P.O., ATHANI, SHORANUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT ------------------------- SRI. ABDUL SAMAD, AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. M.R. SABU. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. R.P.No.585 OF 2011 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.268 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 20th August, 2011 O R D E R The review petitioner has approached this Court stating that the petitioner has been served with a copy of the order dated 19.03.2011, (a copy of which has been produced as Ext. R1(a) along with the affidavit of the respondent in the Contempt case) allegedly in compliance with the direction given by this Court in W.P. © No.27944 of 2009. The learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that the said order is not at all in conformity with the judgment dated 05.07.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)No. 27944 of 2009 and hence the order dated 09.06.2011 whereby the Contempt Case was closed is liable to be reviewed. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. It is settled law, that the scope of the direction R.P.No.585 OF 2011 2 contained in the Order/Judgment cannot be widened in a Contempt of Court case. The Contempt of Court case filed by the petitioner was closed as per the order dated 09.06.2011, taking note of the submission made by the contemnor as to the compliance effected as per Ext. R1(a). If the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, it is always open for the petitioner to have it challenged in accordance with law, for which no permission, whatsoever is necessary. In the said circumstance, there is absolutely no ground for reviewing the order in the COC. Accordingly, Review Petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk