IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 469 of 2006(H) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18138/2005 Dated 01/02/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/IST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- M/S.COASTAL FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD., REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, PERUMANOOR, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KOCHI-682 015. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ABRAHAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ABEESH JOSE. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. SHONEY SANIL, W/O.T.S.SANIL, AGED 33, THANDASSERY HOUSE, VADUTHALAM DESOM, CHERANELLOOR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. VILAS CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.38, IVTH FLOOR, G.C.D.A. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-31, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. 3. T.P.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.NARAYANA MENON, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.VILAS CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.38, IVTH FLOOR, GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-31, RESIDING AT PUSHPANJILI, L.M.PAILY ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SUKUMARI MURALIDHARAN, W/O.T.P.MURALIDHARAN, PARTNER, M/S.VILAS CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.38, IVTH FLOOR, GCDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-31, RESIDING AT PUSHPANJALI, L.M.P.PAILY ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR R3, R4 BY ADV.SRI.TOM JOSE THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.469 OF 2006 IN W.P(C).No.18138 OF 2005 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 O R D E R This review petition is of the year 2006. This matter is coming up today for admission for the first time. Apart from the fact regarding the passage of time, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power of review. The plea raised among the grounds is that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which is one of superintendence, ought not have been invoked, since, according to the review petitioner, the order interfered with is one appelable under Section 17 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. Different pleadings on the basis of the facts are also projected. Stricto senso, the availability or otherwise of an appeal or revisional remedy does not necessarily curtail the power of superintendence in exercise of visitorial power of the constitutional courts. At any rate, that power having been exercised more than three years ago, I do not find any ground to RP.469/06 Page numbers entertain this plea. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record of the judgment sought to be reviewed. This review petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.22/10.