IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 696 of 2008(I) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24026/2007 .................... REVUEW PETITIONER --------------------------- SUMITH, S/O. S.V. MOHAN, SOORYA SANKARATH HOUSE, SRINAGAR COLONY, P.O. KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARATHUSSERI P.O KARUVANNUR, THRISSUR. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, IRINJALAKUDA. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.V MANOJKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.696/2008 -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 O R D E R Counsel submits that, it is on account of a mistake of fact that the counsel made the submission that the writ petition had become infructuous and on that ground, the review is sought for. From the statement made, I am satisfied that the grievance of the writ petitioner highlighted in the writ petition is still surviving. Therefore, it is obviously a mistake on the part of the counsel in submitting that the writ petition had become infructuous. In view of this apparent mistake the review is allowed and the judgment is recalled. Writ Petition shall be posted for hearing. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE 2 vi.