IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 RP.No. 337 of 2009(D) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.34689/2008 Dated 26/11/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- JOSEPH K.J. (60 YEARS), S/O. MATHAI OUSEPH, KATTUPARAMBIL KARTHIKA, THAZHAKKARA MURI, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SMT.K.VIDYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.RAMANATHAN NAIR, AGED 56 YEARS, ATHIRA, THAZHAKKARA MURI, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, ALAPPUZHA. 4. SANTHAMMA W/O. K.J.JOSEPH, KATTUPARAMBIL KARTHIKA, THAZHAKKARA MURI, THAZHAKKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY GP SMT.SUDHA DEVI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.337/2009 in W.P.(C).34689/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 ORDER Third respondent in the writ petition has filed this review petition essentially raising a contention that certain aspects, which according to him were vital, were not disclosed by the petitioner in the writ petition. This inter alia relates to the filing of a counter claim by the writ petitioner in O.S.239/2005, seeking a declaration of title in relation to the pathway in dispute. It is further contended that based on the judgment which is sought to be reviewed, a motion has been made by the writ petitioner before the Civil Court for a stay of further proceedings in O.S.239/2005 on the ground that this Court had directed a statutory revision to be disposed of by the District Collector. 2. A direction to the District Collector to dispose of Ext.P2 revision in the writ petition obviously does not mean anything more than what it is purported to R.P.337/2009 2 convey. I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the petitioner nor was the direction intended to enable the writ petitioner to seek a stay of proceedings in O.S.No.239/2005 or any other Suit for that matter. It is open to the review petitioner to bring to the notice of the Civil Court, the observations being made by this Court in the review petition. 3. Learned Government Pleader submits that the District Superintendent of Survey who is competent to consider the review petition under Section 13A of the Surveys and Boundaries Act, has already heard the parties. The submission is refuted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner. Be that as it may. I make it clear that I have not considered the contentions raised by the writ petitioner on merits and all that I have directed is that the statutory authority exercising powers should consider Ext.P2 revision, after notice to all affected R.P.337/2009 3 persons and take a decision in accordance with law. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to review the judgment. Review petition is accordingly dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs