IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2011 / 28TH POUSHA 1932 RP.No. 223 of 2010 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 1.1.2009 IN WPC.37949/2008 REVIEW PETITIONER: PETITIONER IN WPC M/S.ASMA RUBBER PRODUCTS(P) LTD.,39-B, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, THRIKKAKARA KARA, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-682 037, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.ULLAS SRI.S.JAMAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN WPC 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEES BRANCH INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, WELLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI- 682 003 REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. 2. C.Y.A.RASHEED, AGED 53, S/O.LATE C.P.A.YUSUF, 31, QUEEN'S PARK, KEERTHI NAGAR, NEAR DESHABHIMANI, KALOOR, EDAPPALLAY SOUTH VILLAGE, ELAMAKKARA KARA, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI- 682 017. 3. C.Y.A.RAMLA MOHAMMED, AGED 48, D/O,.LATE C.P.A.YUSUF,T.C.9/306,NC-3 JAWAHAR NAGAR SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUNDAVANAM MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, PIN 695 003. 4. CYA.RAUF,AGED 42,S/O,.LATE C.P.A.YUSUF, C.P.A.YUSUF AND SONS, P.B.NO.4,MUNDAKKAYAM, DO VILLAGE,EDAKKUNNAM MURI, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 513. 5. CYA RAJINA BEEVI, AGED 39,D/O.LATE CPA YUSUF, PRIYA DARSINI NAGAR,PLOT NO.98, PARAVATANI KARA, THRISSUR VILLAGE AND TALUK, THRISSUR EAST PO,PIN 680 005. 6. ASMATTINA RASHEED AGED 25,W/O.M.M.ASEEF MEHFIL HOUSE, T.C.16/1722-1, ULOOR LANE, DPI JN.. THYCAUD MURI, THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH TALUK, THYCAUD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014. RP.NO.223 OF 2010 :: 2 :: 7. FATHIMA BEEVI RASHEED, AGED 22, W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, PLIATHAZHATHU VEEDU, THRIKKAKARA KARA, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, THRIKKAKARA PO, KOCHI-682 028. 8. FATHIMA NASMIN MOHAMMED, AGED 24, W/O.RIYAZ,TC 9/305(1)NC-3, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUNDAVANAM MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,PIN 695 003. 9. TARIQ MOHAMMED, AGED 22, S/O.MOHAMMED ABDULLA,9TC 9/305(1)NC-3, JAWAHAR NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUNDAVANAM MURI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,PIN 695 003. 10. K.M.PHILIP, AGED 50, S/O.KARIMBIL MATHEW KARIMBIL HOUSE,THALLUMUKAL KARA(PO), KOOTICKAL VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 514. 11. V.A.KUNJUMON, AGED 43,S/O.V.K.HASSAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,THALLUMUKAL KARA(PO), KOOTICKAL VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM- 686 514. 12. C.D.MATHAI, AGED 66,S/O.DANIEL, CHEERUKOZHUTHIL,THALLUMUKAL KARA(PO), KOOTICKAL VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 514. 13. P.R.SABU,AGED 43,S/O.RAGHAVAN, POYILLATHU,THALLUMUKAL KARA(PO), KOOTICKAL VILLAGE,KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM-686 514. 14. JAHEEL RAUF, AGED 36,W/O.CYA RAUF, PALARUTHU PUTHUKUDIYIL, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA KARA (PO), ALUVA-683 101. 15. A.M.AKBAR ALI,AGED 46,S/O.A.A.BADURUDEEN PLOT NO.98,PRIYADARSHINI NAGAR, PARAVATHANI KARA, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR EAST PO, THRISSUR- 680 005. 16. NISHA RAHIM, W/O.CYA RAHIM, M/S.ASMA RUBBER PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., H.NO.14, WARD NO.VII/115 N, NOEL HERITAGE, KIZHAKKEKARA ROAD,TRIKKAKARA KARA, VAZHAKAL VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, KOCHI-682 021. 17. CYA RAZACK, AGED 44, 'BISMI', POWER HOUSE ROAD, ALUVA KARA, ALUVA VILLAGE, ALUVA - 683 101. RP.NO.223 OF 2010 :: 3 :: 18. SASIDHARAN NAIR, SREEPADAM HOUSE, VAZHOOR KARA, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 19. SARASAMMA, W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, 'SREEPADAM' HOUSE, VAZHOOR KARA, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS(MEVADA), SC, SBI FOR R1 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO. 223 OF 2010 in W.P.(C). NO.37949 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2011 O R D E R The review petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.37949 of 2008 challenging the order passed by the court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court, in the Writ Petition, did not interfere with the order passed by the court below. The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 1.1.2009 in the Writ Petition. 2. The grievance of the review petitioner is that the contention raised by the review petitioner that the suit is not maintainable was practically foreclosed by the judgment sought to be reviewed. I have carefully gone through the judgment. The observations in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment were made to ascertain whether the ingredients of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure were made out. The observations or findings therein were not intended for arriving at any conclusion as to the maintainability or otherwise of the R. P. NO. 223 OF 2010 in W.P.(C).NO.37949 OF 2010 :: 2 :: suit. The question of maintainability of the suit was not decided by the court below and, therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to decide that question. It is made clear that the findings and observations in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the judgment would not affect the contention of the petitioner that the suit is not maintainable. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/