IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 RP.No. 63 of 2010(O) ----------------------------- (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.35528/2009 DTD. 09/12/2009 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: -------------------------------- OTHAYAMANGALATH AJITHA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.VASU, CHEMANCHERY AMSOM,THUVVAKODE DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PUTHIYAPURAYIL SHYAMALA, 61 YEARS, W/O.PADMANABHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM & DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. HEMALA, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN,PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM & DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK. 3. HARILAL, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN,PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM & DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK. 4. HASEENA, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.PADMANABHAN,PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM & DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK. 5. HABINA, AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.PADMANABHAN,PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHEMMANCHERI AMSOM & DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------- R.P.No.63 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 O R D E R The writ petitioner has filed the above petition to review the judgment dated 9.12.2009 disposing the above writ petition. Challenge raised in the writ petition was against the order passed by the court below setting aside a report and plan filed by an advocate commissioner directing for a fresh report and plan taking measurement on the basis of documents with the assistance of a surveyor. Noticing that the impugned order challenged in the writ petition, passed by the court below in a pending suit, does not warrant any interference in the visitorial jurisdiction vested with this court, declining the reliefs canvassed, the writ petition was closed. 2. Now, the writ petitioner has filed the review petition canvassing a case that the R.P.No.63 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2009 :: 2 :: challenge raised in the writ petition was wrongly considered as if it was against an order remitting the report, but the order impugned was against setting aside a report. When a previous commission report was set aside with a direction to file a fresh report and plan, it was not a case of remittance of the previous report but, one of calling for a fresh report is the case canvassed in the review to contend that the challenge raised was misconstrued and misunderstood by this court while disposing of the writ petition. I do not find any merit in the ground canvassed for reviewing the judgment. The report previously filed was found by the court not acceptable. It was set aside and a fresh report was called for complying with the directions issued. Reference made in the judgment of remitting the commission report was not the case canvassed, but the order of the court calling for a fresh report as presented in the petition to review R.P.No.63 of 2010 in W.P.(C).No.35528 of 2009 :: 3 :: the judgment has no merit. The writ petition was found not entertainable as the challenge raised against the order of the court below was found meritless. When that be so, the challenge raised against the order of the court below was wrongly appreciated by this court is unworthy of any value. Review petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.