IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 930 of 2009() IN CRP.NO.808 OF 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.808/2008 Dated 24/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. TRUE LINE CORPORATION, 5/2338, M.N.G.PUDUR ROAD, SOMAJAMPALAM, COIMBATORE-641 025, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR, JOSE G.KURUVINAKKUNNEL. 2. JOSE G.KURUVINAKUNNEL, PROPRIETOR, TRUE LINE CORPORATION, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER: ------------------------- M/S.PHILIPHS CARBON BLACK LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT AND HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NETHAJI SUBASH ROAD, CALCUTTA-700 001, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN NAIR, RIA NEELIMA, EAST KADUNGALLOOR, U.C.COLLEGE P.O. BY ADV.SRI.DINESH R. SHENOY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.930 OF 2009 IN C.R.P.NO.808 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009 O R D E R The respondent in C.R.P.No.808 of 2008 has filed the above review petition seeking a modification of the previous order enabling substitution of the property to be tendered as security for the suit claim. While disposing the revision by order dated 24.8.2009, this Court has ordered the review petitioners to furnish item No.3 property, which has an extent of six acres, as security by producing the title deed and nonencumbrance certificate and also an undertaking that no charge or encumbrance will be created over the property till the disposal of the suit. Pursuant to that order, the present review petition has been filed by the review petitioners seeking permission for substituting that property with another stating that the previous property offered was mortgaged towards a loan availed from a bank. The respondent/plaintiff RP.930/09 2 has no objection in receiving the property offered in substitution subject to the conditions passed by this Court in the earlier order. In fact, no review over the order previously passed is warranted in the facts, but, only a modification with respect to the substitution of the security to be offered by the review petitioner. The request for substitution of security subject to whatever conditions imposed in the previous order is allowed, and the review petition is disposed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp