IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 638 of 2009(K) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13760/2005 Dated 23/11/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ELAMPAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.604, ELAMPAL P.O., PUNALOOR, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.G.D.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AVANEESWARAM SERVICE CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.1847, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY KUNNIKODE P.O. KOLLAM DIST. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(GENERAL) KOLLAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... R.P.NO. 638 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2009 ORDER This application to review is filed by the third respondent, Co-operative society. It alleges that the first respondent, who was the writ petitioner has caused a false affidavit to be filed, which in turn, resulted in the judgment sought to be reveiwed. Essentially, it appears that the controversy now between the petitioner and the first respondent is pending consideration in another writ petition. Whatever that be, a perusal of the judgment sought to be reviewed apparently shows that I had not stated anything on merits, on the controversy between the writ petitioner and the review petitioner. All that was done was to leave the issues open to let the first respondent herein who was the writ petitioner, if aggrieved by the decisions issued, allegedly without hearing it, to carry it before the appropriate statutory authority. This court does not deem it necessary to take notice of any alleged wrong statement, because ends of justice does not require any such course. Review petition is hence closed without Rp 638/2009 2 prejudice however, clarifying that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not speak anything on merits of the controversy between the parties. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/23/7