IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 394 of 2009(U) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.9601/2009 Dated 30/03/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/5TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------- J.SUMATHY, VARUVILA VEEDU, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4: --------------- 1. R.VIJAYAN, SAJEEV MANDIRAM, PERAYAM CHERRY, THAZHUTHA VILLAGE, UMAYANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIRAKKARA. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- R.P.No.394 of 2009 in W.P.(C.) No.9601 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of May, 2009 O R D E R The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 30/03/2009. At that time, although, notice was served on the review petitioner by special messenger, there was no appearance, and therefore, her submissions could not be heard. In this review petition, it is stated that although the review petitioner had made arrangement for contesting the case by engaging a counsel, it was on account of a mistake on the part of the advocate that the review petitioner happened to be unrepresented. 2. In view of this, I feel it is only appropriate that the review petitioner is also heard, and for that limited purpose, the review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 30/03/2009 is recalled. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg