IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 RP.NO. 1180 OF 2009() --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.145/2009 DATED 18/09/2009 REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS 2-3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FARISHA, D/O. KUNHABDULLA, VAZHAKKANDI HOUSE, VANMUKAM AMSOM, VEEMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. FASILA, D/O. KUNHABDULLA, VAZHAKKANDI HOUSE, VANMUKAM AMSOM, VEEMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON SRI.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 1,4, AND 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UMMAR, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, KUNEEMMAL HOUSE, VANMUKAM AMSOM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. VAZHAKKANDI MUHAMMED SAMEER, S/O. KUNHABDULLA, VAZHAKKANDI HOUSE, VANMUKAM AMSOM, VEENAMANGALAM DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 3. K.P.ASSAINAR, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, KUNEEMMAL HOUSE, VANMUKAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O.KATALUR, KOYILANDY TALUK. ADV. SMT.LIGEY ANTONY FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.1180 of 2009 in R.S.A. No.145 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in R.S.A. No.145 of 2009 have filed this review petition to review the judgment dated September 18, 2009 whereby this Court permitted defendant Nos.1 and 2 to visit their mother in the house in the suit property. Learned counsel submits that review petitioners (respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the Second Appeal) were not actually represented at the time this Court disposed of the Second Appeal at the admission stage and that it appeared that a wrong caveat was filed as if on behalf of petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the visit being made by defendant Nos.1 and 2 creates much problems and it almost amounts the suit being dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and respondents. 3. While disposing the Second Appeal at the admission stage I found no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial court. But considering the request made on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 2 they were permitted to visit their mother in R.P. No.1180 of 2009 -: 2 :- the house in the suit property. That appears to be creating problems among the parties. Having regard to the contentions raised I consider it not necessary to retain the permission granted to defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment. Resultantly, this petition is allowed to the extent that paragraph No.6 of judgment dated September 18, 2009 is deleted and the judgment and decree are reviewed to that extent and the Second Appeal will stand dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv