IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 RP.No. 353 of 2010(D) ------------------------------ [THE JUDGEMENT IN C.R.P.NO.417/2009 DATED 18/03/2010] .................... PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------- JAYARAJ.P.V, CONTRACTOR,ASHA MANDIRAM, PAZHAKUTTY, NEDUMANGAD, NOW RESIDING AT SREE VISWAM,THIRUMALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER,KSHB,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KSHB DIVISION -4, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SRI. A. JAYASANKAR, S.C. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------- RP No.353 of 2010 in CRP No.417/09 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated 25th May 2010 Order This Review Petition has been filed, seeking to have certain mistakes which have crept in, in the order passed by this Court on 18.03.2010 in CRP No.417/09, rectified. 2. The third sentence in paragraph 2 of the order of this Court reads thus: “The matter was referred to the court below and decree was passed.” The above sentence shall be corrected to read as follows: “The award was filed before the Court below and a decree was passed.” 3. Further, in paragraph 4 of the order, it has been observed that 'the learned counsel for the petitioners relies on a decision of this Court reported in Milk Food Ltd. v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd (2004(3) RP No.353/10 2 KLT SN 136) to support his contention'. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the said decision has been relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in the CRP. Accordingly, the said sentence would be corrected to read as, “The learned counsel for the respondent relied on a decision of this Court reported in Milk Food Ltd. v. GMC Ice Cream (P) Ltd (2004(3) KLT SN 136) to support his contention.” The Review Petition is allowed as above. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP No.353/10 3