IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2007 / 4TH SRAVANA 1929 RP.No. 661 of 2007() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN INS.AP.48/2006 Dated 27/10/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/OPP.PARTY: ------------------------------------------------------- E.S.I. CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANCHADEEP BHAVAN, NORTH SWARAJ ROUND, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMY, SC, ESI CORPN. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: --------------------------------- M/S. K.P.L. OIL MILLS (P) LTD., KODUNGALLUR ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,JOSHU ANTO. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVINGCOME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & M.N.KRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------- R.P.No.661 of 2007 in Ins.Appl.No.48 OF 2006 & C.M.Appl.286 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 26th July, 2007 ORDER Koshy,J . This is a petition for reviewing the judgment on the ground that the Full Bench decision of this court in Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Excel Glasses Ltd. (2003 (3) K.L.T. 42 (FB)) was subsequently overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Santhakumar (2007 (1) K.L.T 133 (SC)). Overruling of a decision referred in the judgment is not a ground for review (See Shanti Devi v. State of Haryana (2000(1)K.L.T 697 S.C)). Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly rules out review in such a situation. Hence, it is well settled law that a subsequent decision of the court is not a ground for reviewing a judgment or condoning the delay in filing a review petition. Both delay condonation petition as well as review petition are dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE tks