IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 583 of 2008(M) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17344/2007 Dated 18/09/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY PETITIONER ----------------- POOCHAKKAD SREE MAHAVISHNU KSHETRA JEERNODHARANA SAMITHI, KEEKKAN, PALLIKKARA, KASARAGOD DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER: ------------- 1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICES OF REVENUE DIVISION, KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. SECRETARY, PALLIKKARE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIKKARA KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DIST. 3. SECRETARY, PRANAVAM KALAVEDHY, THEKKEPPURAM, KEEKKAN P.O., KASAAGOD DIST. 4. B.M.HASSAINAR, GENERAL SECRETARY, SHARAFUL ISLAM COMMITTEE, THEKKEPPURAM, KEEKKAN PO. KASARAGOD DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- RP. No. 583 of 2008 in W.P.(C)No. 17344 of 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner Poochakkad Sree Mahavishnu Kshetra Jeernodharana Samithi, not a party to the writ petition, seeks review of my judgment in the writ petition by which I had issued certain directions to the second respondent Panchayat regarding removal of a “Kamanam” which remained upon a Panchayat road as an objectionable structure. 2. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan for review petitioner, Sri.Shiraz Abdulla for the 4th respondent writ petitioner, the Government Pleader and Mr.Madhu, counsel for the Panchayat extensively. Mr.Shiraz Abdulla would argue that the review petition is not at all maintainable at the instance of the petitioner, a non-party in the writ petition. The stand taken by the review petitioner in an all party meeting convened under the aegis of the Panchayat was that they were not at all responsible for the controversial “Kamanam” and that it was the third respondent in the writ petition, Pranavam Kalavedhy who had put up the “Kamanam” (Arch). RP. N0. 583/08 -2- 3. If the review petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment it is for them to seek leave and prefer a regular appeal. There is no warrant for invoking this court's powers for review of the judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.. I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Review petitioner was not a party to the writ petition. No relief had been claimed against the review petitioner. In fact going by Ext.R2(a) minutes of the all party meeting convened by the Panchayat it was absolutely unnecessary for the writ petitioner to have impleaded review petitioner or to have sought relief against the review petitioner. I had of course stated in my judgment that notice regarding action for removal of the “Kamanam” shall be issued to the authorities of the temple, so that those authorities can inform the Panchayat as to whether any party apart from this Kalavedhy to be given notice regarding the removal of the “Kamanam”. Review petitioner is not the authority of the temple. They seem to be an unregistered association of persons formed with the objective of renovating the temple. Though they have produced Annexure-A3 it is seen that Annexure A3 was received not by the review petitioner, but by the committee administering the temple. 4. The Supreme Court has recently in Jaswant Singh Lamba v. RP. N0. 583/08 -3- Haryana Agricultural University, (2008) 5 SCC 656 dealt with the question whether applications for review at the instance of the non- parties to the original proceeding are maintainable. It has been held that a party against whom no relief had been claimed is not entitled to seek review of the judgment invoking the powers under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. 5. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court I dismiss the R.P. But nothing stated in this order will stand in the way of the review petitioner obtaining leave for filing appeal against the judgment, if so advised. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/-