IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2008 / 8TH MAGHA 1929 RP.No. 960 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.15431/2003 Dated 06/08/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER : --------------------------------------- C.S.SHANAVAS, S/O. SAIDUMUHAMMED, CHATHANKODATH HOUSE, WEST VELIYATHUNADU, ALANGADU P.O., PIN-683 511. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SHAMSUDEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : ---------------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, MAVELI BHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-20. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (REVENUE RECOVERY), N.PARAVUR TALUK, NORTH PARUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MOLLY JACOB, SC, SUPPLY CO. R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.N.SUDHA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P. No. 960 OF 2007 IN O.P. No. 15431 OF 2003 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The issues between the parties as raised in OP No. 15431 of 2003 were considered and disposed of as per judgment dt.06.08.07. Neither side brought to the notice of this Court that even before that, Annexure A1 judgment followed by Annexure A2 decree were issued by the Sub Court, Ernakulam on 18.10.05, inter partis. This means that the parties had obtained a verdict on the issue before this Court passed judgment in OP No. 15431 of 2003. 2. Keeping aside the technical issues as to whether absence of disclosure of a prior judgment would give an over riding effect to the judgment issued by this court on 06.08.07, I am satisfied that ends of justice require that the judgment dt.06.08.07 needs to be vacated permitting Annexure A1 and A2 to govern the parties, particularly, because there was no reason to issue the judgment sought to be reviewed had this court noticed RPNo.960 of 2007 2 that Annexure A1 judgment and Annexure A2 decree was passed by a competent Civil Court. This is a sufficient ground to exercise the power of review in writ jurisdiction. 3. In the result, this review petition is allowed vacating the judgment dt.06.08.07 and the parties will now be governed by Annexure A1 judgment and Annexure A2 decree passed on 18.10.05 in OS No.455 of 2004 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam subject to the right of the parties to challenge that judgment and decree in accordance with law, before competent courts. The Review Petition is allowed accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE btt RPNo.960 of 2007 3