IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 464 of 2005(U) in O.P. No.20336 of 1998 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.20336/1998 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------ THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (FORMERLY THRISSUR MUNICIPALITY). BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION) THRISSUR. 4. THE II ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, THRISSUR. 5. T.K. DEVASSY, THARAYIL HOUSE, 3/51, "PANCHAVADY", P.O. THIROOR, THRISSUR DIST. 6. SMT.SOSANNAM DEVASSY, W/O. LATE T.K. DEVASSY, CHIRAYATH THARAYIL HOUSE, SUBASH ROAD, PARAVATTANI P.O., THRISSUR DIST. R.P.464/05 -2- 7. SAJU D.THARAYIL, W/O.LATE T.K.DEVASSY, CHIRAYATH THARAYIL HOUSE, SUBASH ROAD, PARAVATTANI P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 8. SHIJU DAVIS, S/O.LATE T.K.DEVASSY, CHIRAYATH THARAYIL HOUSE, SUBASH ROAD, PARAVATTANI P.O., THRISSUR DIST. 9. SMT.SHINY JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, 21ST CHURCH ROAD, `AVE MARIA', SANTHINAGAR, KARNATAKA STATE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU SMT.C.NANDINI MENON SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- C. M. Application No.4415 of 2005 & R. P. No.464 of 2005 in O.P. No.20336 of 1998 --------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 ORDER C. M. Application No.4415 of 2005 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 296 days in filing the review petition. Since, I am in a position to dispose of the R.P. itself immediately, I am inclined to allow this application even without notice to the respondents. This C.M.Application is allowed. R.P. No.464/2005 Even though apparently attractive grounds are raised in the R.P. and Sri.K.B.Mohandas, the learned Standing Counsel for the review petitioner/Corporation addressed arguments based on those grounds, I do R. P. No.464 of 2005 -2- not find anything which appeals to the attenuated jurisdiction of this Court under Order 47 Rule 1. As a matter of fact, under the judgment sought to be reviewed the merits of the contention raised by the Review Petitioner was noticed and the Review Petitioner was allowed to get themselves impleaded in the pending appeals. The R.P. will stand dismissed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE kns/-