IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 1061 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.32266/2002 DATED 11/06/2003 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------- A.O. JOY, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS, AZAD VELI, KAYIPRAM, MUHAMMA P.O. BY ADV. MR.M.K.PRADEEPKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MUHAMMA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 2. SECRETARY, MUHAMMA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUHAMMA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.1061/2009 in O.P.32266/2002-N = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of November, 2009. O R D E R Notice to the respondents dispensed with preserving their right to seek re-hearing of this review petition, if aggrieved. The review petitioner was the writ petitioner. He sought relief against the Grama Panchayat. When the matter was taken for final hearing in June, 2003, it was submitted by both sides that there was a civil suit pending between the petitioner and the Grama Panchayat. That was recorded and parties were relegated to stand by the decision of the civil court. But, the fact of the matter remained even in February, 2003, that the suit which was only one for injunction, remained dismissed for default. Obviously, the judgment sought to be reviewed does not decide any of the RP1061/2009 -: 2 :- issues between the parties. It does not, in any manner, conclude the question of title, boundary etc. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that the judgment sought to be reviewed would stand in the way of the petitioner working out remedies elsewhere does not appear to be acceptable but that anxiety has necessarily to be cleared by stating that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not stand in the way of the petitioner or the Grama Panchayat working out his/its remedies and taking action in accordance with law. The judgment sought to be reviewed will not preclude any defence in any proceedings. The review petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/171109 The sentence “The judgment sought to be reviewed will not preclude any defence in any proceedings” occurring in the 12th and 13th lines of the 2nd page of the order dated 10/11/2009 in R.P 1061/2009 in OP 32266/2002 is corrected as “The RP1061/2009 -: 3 :- judgment sought to be reviewed will not preclude any assertion or defence of any of the parties in any proceedings” as per order dated 14/12/2009 in I.A 660/2009. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial) Sha/0601