IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1071 of 2010() --------------------- ( AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN SA. 397/1995 Dated 16/07/2010) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/LR OF PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RAHIYYATH BEEVI,D/O.SULEKHA BEEVI, PUTHENVEETTIL, NEDUMPANACHERY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDUL RAHIM,S/O.ABDUL RAZAKCHARUVILA HOUSE,PALLIMON CHERRY KOLLAM. 2. HAZIAM BEEVI,W/O.ABDUL RAHIM, CHARUVILA HOUSE, PALLIMON CHERRY,KOLLAM. 3. ABOOBECKER KUNJU ISHA UMMA,VILAYIL VEEDU,PALLIMON CHERRY,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.VINOD R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------- R.P.No.1071 of 2010 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 ORDER This petition filed by the review petitioner for the review of the judgment dated 16.07.2010 in S.A.397/1995. 2. It is pointed out that the materials facts having a bearing on the issues were not brought to the notice of this court and the findings entered could not be challenged effectively at the time of hearing of second appeal. It is also alleged that this court ought to have appreciated the documents and other evidence in the case. According to the review petitioner, the existence of the pathway was admitted and that would have been sufficient to grant a decree in his favour. 3. The present petition is nothing but an attempt to have a rehearing of the appeal. All the points now raised have been considered in the second appeal. This court has independently considered the evidence on record and found that no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment and decree of the courts below. No grounds are made out to review the judgment. The R.P. is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. ln