IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 330 of 2009() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.230/2004 DATED 23/08/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V.J. MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH, PALATHARA HOUSE, PAREEKKANNY P.O., NERIYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.T.V.GEORGE RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. MR.C.K. KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, ALONG WITH RP.331/2009 AND RP.332/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P.Nos.330, 331 AND 332 OF 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of August 2009 ------------------------------------- O R D E R These three review petitions have been filed against the orders passed, separately, in three C.R.Ps by this court. Turning down the challenges raised by the petitioner, claimant filed an application before the court below for enhanced compensation with respect to the extent of land over which injurious affectation was caused by the drawing of overhead lines. After passing of the orders by the trial curt adjudicating, the claim for enhanced compensation petitioners moved applications for amendment of the order stating that the extent of land which was injuriously affected by drawing of the line as stated in the order is much less and it should be corrected. The learned Sub Judge after having an enquiry over the matter dismissed those applications as not R.P.Nos.330, 331 Page numbers AND 332 OF 2009 entertainable. Those orders were challenged before this court by way of revision. This court also, upholding the view taken by the learned Sub Judge dismissed the revisions. The review petitions have been filed as if there is some mistake on the orders passed by this court. 3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. I am not satisfied from the submissions made and after perusing the orders covered by the proceedings that there is any scope for invoking review under order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Review cannot be used for the purpose of rehearing of the case. A review is permissible only if the conditions envisaged for entertaining such a petition as provided by law is made out. The review petitions lack merit and they are rejected. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, //TRUE COPY// JUDGE vdv P.A TO JUDGE