IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 RP.No. 1052 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA NOS.314 & 1153/2008 DATED 07/09/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- MRS. ARASI VIJAYAKUMAR, 'DHRUVAM', THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.JAMES VINCENT RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT & RESPONDENTS 2&3/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. N.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR, SOUTH OF OVERBRIDGE M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 3. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.RAMPRASAD UNNI R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R3 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ORDERS ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ C.M.Appln.No.179 of 2010 & R.P.No.1052 of 2010 in W.A. Nos.314 & 1153 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of March, 2011 ORDER J.Chelameswar, C.J. This review petition is filed aggrieved by the common judgment of this Court dated 7th September, 2010 in W.A.Nos.314 and 1153 of 2008. The review petition itself is belated and therefore C.M.Appln.No.179 of 2010 is also filed praying that the delay of 35 days in filing the review petition be condoned. The first respondent is represented by learned counsel Sri.T.Ramprasad Unni. The second respondent is represented by the learned Government Pleader and the third respondent is represented by learned counsel Sri.P.K.Manoj Kumar. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Accepting the reasons given in the affidavit in support of the application, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 2. A memorandum of review petition running to 18 pages is filed. A reading of the same leaves an impression R.P.No.1052 of 2010 - 2 - that the petitioner seeks a rehearing of the appeal in the guise of review which in our opinion is not permissible. We therefore dismiss the review petition. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns