IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 458 of 2008(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.7708/2008 Dated 06/03/2008 .................... PETITIONER: ---------------------------- K.JAYALAKSHMI, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRAN P.T., THANATU HOUSE, KADALUNDI NAGARAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY SRI.A.PARVATHI MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT: ------------------------ 1. TAHSILDAR, THIRURANGADI 676 306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., K.V.TOWERS, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR.R.ASOKAN, K.V.TOWERS, MARAPPALAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.458/2008 in W.P.(C).7708/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 ORDER Writ petition was disposed of taking note of the averments made in the writ petition as also the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that O.S.57/2001 in which the petitioner figured as a defendant had been decreed ex parte. This Court therefore, expressed the opinion that the remedy of the petitioner is to move the Civil Court for getting the ex parte decree to set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner Mr.Sanjay submits that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that O.S.57/2001 had been decreed ex parte, was an error of fact due to erroneous information collected by the petitioner. Petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the suit in O.S.57/2001 has been dismissed. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. It is true that the direction R.P.458/2008 2 in the judgment was essentially based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that O.S.57/2001 had been decreed ex parte. Had the position be in otherwise, different considerations would have weighed with this Court while dealing with the writ petition, challenging the notice under the Revenue Recovery Act. 4. In the result, review petition is allowed. The judgment dated 6.3.2008 in W.P.(C).7708/2008 is recalled. Writ petition will be disposed of by a separate judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs