IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 R.P.No. 373 of 2008(S) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN COC.76/2008 .................................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- JOHN, S/O THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS, CHAKKALAMANNIL, MURINJAKAL, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNON RESPONDENT: --------------- RAJAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS(FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), VILLAGE OFFICER, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. No. 373 of 2008 in C.O.C. No. 76 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 9th April, 2008. O R D E R This Review Petition has been filed for re-opening the contempt case. 2. The writ petition was disposed of directing that the proceedings on the application made by the petitioner for the issue of a possession certificate shall be completed within the time specified. The contempt was filed and that was closed recording the submission of the learned Govt. Pleader that the judgment has been complied with. The complaint in the review petition is that the submission was incorrect. 3. But, today the learned Govt. Pleader produced the file and submits that though possession certificate was issued, the petitioner wanted a fresh one to be issued. From this itself it is evident that possession certificate was in fact not given to the petitioner. RP No. 373/08 in COC No. 76/08 - 2 - 3. The facts do not indicate that the submission made by the learned Govt. Pleader, when the contempt was considered, was incorrect. The review petition is only to be dismissed. I do so. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-