IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 580 of 2009 in FAO.268/2005 -------------------- ( I.A.1242/05 IN O.S.79/2003 OF PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PARAVUR). REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- P.SURENDRANATH, PROPRIETOR, CHENNAMANGALAM JUNCTION, NORTH PARAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.VINOD CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------ HENKAL SPIC INDIA LTD.,A PUBLIC LTD. COMPANY, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL OFFICE AT TEMPLE TOWER,3RD FLOOR,NO.672, ANNA SALAI, NANDANAM, CHENNAI, REP.BY ITS P/A.HOLDER HAROLD JOSEPH D'CUTO,AGED 42,C/O.CURLEN JACOB &CO.CLEANING & FORWARDING AGENTS OF HENKAL SPIC INDIA LTD.ALWAYE. BY ADV. SRI. R. MANOJ SMT. SINDHU MANOJ THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P. No.580 of 2009 in F.A.O.268 of 2005. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. ORDER Raman, J, The review petition is filed by the respondent in the appeal, who was the defendant in the suit. The appeal itself was against the order refusing to restore the suit dismissed for default. 2. By our judgment dated 27.5.2009, we allowed the appeal on terms. Petitioner herein would contend that though the plaintiff was absent even on earlier occasions, there was no proper explanation for the absence. It is also pointed out that the interrogatories though served were not answered. These aspects, if taken note of, it is contended that there is no sufficient cause made out for restoration of the suit. 3. The contention raised in the review petition does not make out any new case, or any new point not considered by us in our judgment. If the contention has to be considered on its merits, it is nothing but a re-appreciation of the facts, which cannot be done in a review petition. There are no errors apparent on the face R.P.580/2009. 2 of the record to warrant review of the judgment. Taking into consideration of the totality of facts, we ourselves allowed the application only on terms. This, according to us, is sufficient penalty for the laches, if any, on the part of the plaintiff. In the circumstances, we find no reason to review the judgment. The review petition is dismissed. We notice that though we have dismissed the review petition, the contention that the interrogatories, though served, have not been answered, cannot go unnoticed. In the circumstances, we direct that the appellant shall answer the interrogatories, if so advised, within two weeks from the date of first posting before the court below, failing which, the court below will draw adverse inference as permitted by law. P.R. Raman, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.