IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 108 of 2009(G) ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30314/2008 OS.1271/1993 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/1st RESPONDENT: NIRMALA ANTONY LASSLOTT, W/O. ANTONY MICHAEL LASSLOTT, THENGAZHAIKATHU VEEDU, KARAVALLOOR VILLAGE, NARICKAL, PATHANAPURAM KOLLAM, NOW WORKING & R/AT POST BOX NO. 45030, ABUDABI , UAE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WILSON MULLASSERY, S/O. GEE VARGHESE BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & R2 TO R5: 1. SUJATHA, D/O. SULOCHANA, ERATTAKULANGARA VEEDU, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K. SUGATHAN, DO. DO. 3. L.SUNEETHI, DO. DO. 4. SUPRIYA, DO. DO. 5. K.SUDHEER, DO. DO. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- R.P.No.108 of 2009 in W.P.(C)No.30314 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Heard counsel for the review petitioner. 2. The review petitioner is the first respondent in the writ petition. The judgment in the writ petition was delivered in open court after having heard the arguments of counsel on both sides elaborately. Nothing was submitted then that any point was omitted to be noted by this Court. Counsel for the review petitioner submits that at that time, another counsel was appearing for the review petitioner and he has taken up engagement only after the pronouncement of judgment in the writ petition. One of the parties engaging a new counsel and that new counsel making an approach to the issue involved in a different perspective is no ground to allow the review petition. This review petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. 4th February, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv