IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 1017 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.399/2009 Dated 18/09/2009 E.A.178/07 IN E.P.146/06 IN O.S.227/96 OF THE PRL. MUNSIFF COURT-I, KOZHIKODE. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER: CLAIM PETITIONER/3RD PARTY ------------------------------------------------ K.A.BHASKARAN, 72 YEARS S/O. AYYAPPUTTI WORKING IN WORK SHOP KARUTHEDATHU VEEDU, MALAPARAMBA.P.O. VENGERI VILLAGE, NEDUNGATTOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP ANTONY CHACKO SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------- 1. KOLASSERRY YAMUNA 60 YEARS, D/O.DAMODHARN, OWN AFFAIRS "YAMUNA" KALATHINKUNNU AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.C.PANKAJAM SREENIVASAN, 77 YEARS ELAYANIPURAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KARUTHEDATHU SATHI DEVI, 56 YEARS W/O. BHASKARAN, KARUTHEDATHU VENGERI VILLAGE NEDUNGATTOOR DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. ADV. V.V.SURENDRAN FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.1017 of 2009 in C.R.P.No.399 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 21st October, 2009 ORDER Review Petition is filed by the petitioner in C.R.P.No.399 of 2009 to review the order dated 18.9.2009 passed by this court dismissing the revision. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Having regard to the submissions made and perusing the grounds canvassed in the review petition, I find by way of review, the petitioner seeks a rehearing of the revision imputing some of the findings and observations made by this court in the order dismissing the revision confirming the order passed by the court below. No ground whatsoever to entertain a review as contemplated under Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been made out to entertain the review petition. Mere statement that the order passed by this court was based on some mistakes or error on the face of the record, petitioner cannot seek review of the order disposing the revision. Petitioner had been advised to prefer an appeal when he approached a counsel to have an appeal against the order dismissing the revision is the submission of the counsel for entertaining this R.P.No.1017/09 - 2 - review petition, which needless to point out, has no merit unless it is shown that the order passed earlier is open to review for any of the grounds permissible under law. That being not the case, I find the review petition is liable to be rejected, and ordered accordingly. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE