IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1930 RP.No.203 of 2009 (W) in W.P.C. NO.8389 OF 2007 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.8389/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- ABRAHAM.P.J, S/O. JOSEPH, PAMPADIYIL HOUSE, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS P.MATHEW SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA RESPONDENT: PETITIONER --------------------------------- JOSE JOSEPH, MANAGING PARTNER, UNIVERSAL RUBBERS, CHERPUNGAL.P.O, PALA, KOTTAYAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P.BALACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.203 of 2009 in W. P. C. No.8389 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 20th day of February, 2009 ORDER The review petitioner is the respondent in W.P.C. No.8389/07 and he seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition on 09/12/08, allowing the amendment sought for vide Ext.P4 application. Advocate Sri.Mathews P. Mathew who appears for the review petitioner submits that the judgment allowing the Writ Petition happened to be delivered only because fraud had been played on this Court by the counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the respondent and that therefore, review be allowed and he be permitted to argue the Writ Petition afresh on merits. What was allowed vide judgment in the Writ Petition is only an application for amendment of plaint. By such amendment no harm R. P. No.203 of 2009 -2- at all is to be caused and the case brought in by amendment if at all not true as is alleged before me by the review petitioner, it is a matter to be established on evidence and the correctness or otherwise of the pleading is not a matter which arise for consideration while considering the amendment application. Further, the fact that a lawyer who has argued the Writ Petition on behalf of the respondent is not the counsel who appears now for the respondent filing the review petition and the new counsel has traced out some more points to advance arguments resisting the Writ Petition is no ground for review. This Review Petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed. K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-