IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 638 of 2010() IN W.P.(C).NO.21601 OF 2008 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21601/2008 Dated 08/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 8 TO 2: ---------------------------------------- 1. SURESH BABU, S/O.POKKALI PADMANABHAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 2. SWAMYNATHAN, S/O.POKKALI PADMANABHAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. SUDHARATNAM,D/O.POKKALI PADMANABHAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 4. SREEDEVI, D/O.POKKALI PADMANABHAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 5. SANTHA, D/O.POKKALI PADMANABHAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7: ------------------------------------------------ 1. VENUGOPALAN KIDAVU, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, SREEMUKHAM, P.O.CHELANOOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THILOTHAMA, D/O.KUNHIKANARAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 3. VENUGOPALAN, H/O.THILOTHAMA, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 4. MEYANAMETHAL MOOTHARAN, S/O.THANIYAN, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. 5. ELATHU METHAL KANDTHY D/O.PARAYAMPARA, THAMARASSERY AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE. R.P.NO.638/10 6. RAMACHANDRAN KIDAVU, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, "SREEMUKHAM" P.O.CHELANOOR, KOZHIKODE. 7. GANGADHARAN KIDAVU, S/O.LAKSHMI AMMA, "SREEMUKHAM" P.O.CHELANOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV.SRI.NIRMAL.S FOR RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.638 OF 2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.21601 OF 2008 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The review petition is filed by the respondents 8 to 12 in the above writ petition, which had been disposed by judgment dated 8th July, 2009. An order passed by the court below dismissing an application moved by the 7th defendant seeking amendment of his written statement with respect to the extent of a property, was the subject matter of the challenge in the writ petition. After hearing both sides and noticing that the amendment sought for over the pleading if not allowed would cause miscarriage of justice, reversing the order of the court below, and allowing the amendment sought for, the writ petition was disposed. Some of the observations made in the judgment of this Court would cause prejudice to respondents 8 to 12, who were substituted as additional plaintiffs on the demise of the plaintiff, is the ground canvassed for review. R.P.NO.638/10 2 I heard the counsel on both sides. Request made for reviewing the order is challenged by the counsel appearing for the respondents contending that no binding observation had been made. Though I do find force in the objections, it is made clear that none of the observations made by this Court in the judgment will have any bearing on the disposal of the suit on merits. The court below shall dispose the suit in accordance with law untrammelled by any of the observations made by this Court in its judgment. Subject to what is stated above, the review petition is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp R.P.NO.638/10 3