IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 304 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.222/2005 Dated 03/02/2009 (O.S. 24/2002 OF THE WAKF TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE.) REVIEW PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER K.P.SEBASTIAN,S/O.ULHANNAN POULOSE, AGED 40 YEARS,G.M.F.ASSOCIATES,NEAR BUS STAND, KANNUR ROAD,PERAMBRA,SHOP NO.1/906, MENHANIYAM AMSOM AND DESOM,KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1. DARUSSALAM MADRASSA COMMITTEE,AYANCHERY, (VADAKARA TALUK),A WAKF REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRATION NO.6943,REP.BY AND ACTING THROUGH ITS FORMER PRESIDENT MUTHAVALLY MUPATTA MUHAMMED ALI HAJEE,S/O.KUNHABDULA HAJI,53 YEARS, RAMATH HOUSE,AYANCHERI AMSOM DESOM,VATAKARA TALUK. 2. PRESENT PRESIDENT/MUTHAVALLY PUTHIYOTHIL A.P.KUNHISEETHI THANGAL, S/O.MUTHUKOYA THANGAL,AGED 50 YEARS, PUTHIYOTHIL HOUSE,AYANCHERI AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. NO. 304/2009 IN C.R.P. (Wakf) 222/2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2009. O R D E R Raman, J. This is a petition seeking review of the judgment dated 3.2.2009 in C.R.P. (Wakf) 222/2005. The contention raised in the petition is that the question as to whether it is a Wakf or not was not decided by the Tribunal and merely because it is registered, it does not evidence that it is a Wakf.. Learned counsel placed reliance on another decision Ext.A1 produced in the case, in respect of the same Wakf. 2. Learned Senior counsel Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar along with Sri. Sudhissh appeared. 3. In our judgment under review, we have only stated that Ext.A1 will only evidence the fact that it is a registered Wakf. Further, whether it is a Wakf or not is a matter on which no challenge was made by impleading the Wakf Board. We have considered the evidence on record and rendered the judgment. Review petition being only to correct an error apparent on the face of the record and if the contention could be appreciated only based R.P. 304/09 IN CRP 222/05 :2: on reasoning, it is not an "error apparent on the face of the record". Further, we cannot re-appreciate the contentions in a Review petition. If the judgment is wrong the remedy is to file an appeal. In the circumstances, the review petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. KNC/-