IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 1360 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.293/2007 Dated 06/07/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. NECHICHINAKKAL SAMI , S/O.KELU, AGED 54 YEARS, A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2. NECHICHINAKKAL BALAN,S/O.KELU, RESIDING AT --DO--. 3. NECHICHINAKKAL GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELU,RESIDING AT --DO--. 4. NECHICHINAKKAL VASUDEVAN, S/O.KELU,RESIDING AT --DO--. 5. NECHICHINAKKAL RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.KELU,RESIDING AT --DO--. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. AHAMMEDUKUTTY, S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 55 YEARS, CHALILAKATH A.R.NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYOOR DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK. 2. MOIDEENKUTTY,S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDNG AT -DO- -DO-. 3. MOOSAKOYA,S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDNG AT -DO- -DO-. 4. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDNG AT -DO- -DO-. 5. UMMER,S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDNG AT -DO- -DO-. 6. SAIDALAVI,S/O.KUNHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDNG AT -DO- -DO-. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.M.A.1003 OF 2008 & R.P.NO. 1360 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2008 ORDER Crl.M.A.1003 of 2008 is filed to condone the delay in filing the review petition. Review petition is filed to review the judgment in R.S.A.293 of 2007. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit. Suit is one for injunction and damages. Suit was dismissed by learned Munsiff finding that plaintiff has not identified the plaint schedule property. Sub Judge in A.S.39 of 2007 confirmed that finding and dismissed the appeal. That was challenged before this court in RSA 293 of 2007. This court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage finding that no substantial question of law is involved. Review petition is filed on the ground that there is a finding by the trial court on title and therefore this court should have vacated that finding. 2. What was found by learned Munsiff in paragraph 16 of the judgment is that petitioner has not succeeded in proving his possession or title to the plaint schedule property. It is seen that the question of title and possession. On that issue there is no finding that plaintiffs have no title. In fact, the question of title RP 1360/2008 2 was not gone into by the Munsiff or Sub Judge. In such circumstances, there is no necessity to vacate the finding by reviewing the judgment as sought for. It is made clear that as the suit is one for injunction and it was dismissed for failure of plaintiffs to identify the plaint schedule property, dismissal of the suit will not prevent the plaintiff from instituting a suit based on title. CRL.M.A.1003 OF 2008 & R.P.NO. 1360 OF 2008 are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-