IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2011 / 17TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 380 of 2011(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10545/2011 Dated 01/04/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/3RD PARTY: ---------------------- SRI NARAYANA PARAMAHAMSA SAMAJAM, VADANAPPALLY, ENGANDIYUR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETART SHRI C.V. SATHYAPALAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 60 YEARS, CHERAYATH HOUSE, GANESAMANGALAM, POST VADANAPPALLY. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS.(S): --------------- 1. MOHAN SANKAR V.N., VAIKKATTIL HOUSE, VADANAPPALLY6 AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, ENGADIYUR PO.. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR P.O. 680003, 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHAVAKKAD. 680 506 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADANAPPALLY, ENGANDIYUR. R1 BY . SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. R.P. No. 380 OF 2011 IN W.P.(C) 10545 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 7th June , 2011 O R D E R The review petitioner is aggrieved by the verdict passed in W.P.(C) 10545 of 2011, whereby the prayer of the petitioner to consider Ext. P4 with regard to acceptance of basic tax was directed to be considered by the second respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that quite a number of civil disputes are pending consideration before different fora/Courts and that the request made by the review petitioner for hearing before the orders are passed on Ext. P4 preferred by the writ petitioner was not positively dealt with, which made the review petitioner to approach this Court. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner as well. 3. Obviously, no decision was rendered on merits by this Court, but for a direction to have the representation considered R.P. No. 380 OF 2011 2 and to pass appropriate orders. There was no error apparent on the face of the records so as to invoke the power of review. The idea and understanding of the review petitioner is quite wrong and misconceived. 4. However, this Court finds it fit and proper to give a direction, so as to avoid multiplicity of litigations, to hear the review petitioner as well, before final orders are passed on Ext.P4, if the same is still pending consideration. In view of the fact that the time limit specified in the judgment is already over, it will stand enlarged by one month. The Review Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk