IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 RP.No. 821 of 2010(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.26661/2010 Dated 06/09/2010 (IA NO.2276/2009 IN OS 468/2009 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOCHI) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS --------------------------------- 1. AUGUSTINE, S/O.MATHAI, PAINTER, PULICKAL HOUSE, NEAR POOPPANAKUNNU, KUMBALANGHIMURI, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KOCHI-682007. 2. SHEELA, W/O.AUGUSTINE, PULLICKAL HOUSE, NEAR POOPPANAKUNNU, KUMBALANGHIMURI, KUMBALANGHI VILLAGE, KOCHI-682007. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN SMT.NITA.N.S. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- TREASA PUSHPY, W/O.WILSON, PULICKAL HOUSE, NEAR POOPANAKUNNU, KUMBALANGHI (P.O)., KOCHI-682007. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- R.P.No.821 of 2010 in W.P.(C) No.26661 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010. ORDER Above stated Writ Petition was disposed of by me vide judgment dated 06.09.2010 after hearing learned Senior Advocate for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent. As per that judgment, it was directed that without prejudice to the contentions raised by either side respondent shall be permitted to use that part of disputed plaint C schedule towards east of plaint A schedule northern part so that, respondent could gain access from the “new pathway” straight to plaint B schedule along its south-eastern corner. It was also directed that petitioners shall remove all obstructions from the said portion of plaint C schedule within the time stipulated in the judgment failing which respondent was permitted to remove such obstruction through court and realise the cost from petitioners. This petition in review is filed by petitioners on 09.09.2010 stating that there are certain structures in that part of plaint C schedule allowed to be used by the respondent as per judgment dated 06.09.2010 and suggesting an alternative way. On the Review Petition I have heard counsel on both sides. Now it is agreed that respondent could use that part of plaint C schedule on the west and north of plaint A schedule northern part as reported by the Advocate Commissioner, Sri A.P.Juby Raj in his report so that respondent can gain access from the “new pathway” from towards the south- RP No.821/2010 2 western side of plaint A schedule northern part, go towards north, then towards east and enter plaint B schedule through its south-eastern part. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners state that petitioners will remove all obstructions from that part of plaint C schedule reported by the Advocate Commissioner. Learned counsel for respondent agrees to that suggestion. Resultantly, this Review Petition is allowed in part and judgment dated 06.09.2010 is reviewed to the extent that instead of that part of plaint C schedule towards east of plaint A schedule northern part, respondent will have a right of access through that part of plaint C schedule on the west and north of plaint A schedule northern part in such a way that respondent could gain access from the south-western side of plaint A schedule northern part through plaint C schedule, go towards north and then towards east (along northern side of plaint A schedule northern part) and enter plaint B schedule through its south-eastern part. All other directions and conditions referred to in the judgment dated 06.09.2010 would stand. Petitioners shall remove the obstruction if any from the said part of plaint C schedule within a week from this day. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks