IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 RP.No. 447 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.11063/2010 Dated 30/03/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): FIRST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------- VARGHESE PHILIP, (WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS PHILIP @ BABY KUTTY IN THE WP), S/O.PHILIP, NEDUMPADATHI HOUSE, SEETHATHODE P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS AND WRIT PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VALSAMMA, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.SAMKUTTY, MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, SEETHATHODE P.O., CHITTAR SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. MATHEW SAMUEL, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SAMUEL, MOOZHICKAL HOUSE, CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. PHILIPOSE SAMUEL, S/O.SAMUEL, MOOZHICAL HOUSE, CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA TALUK. 4. JOSE, S/O.GEORGE, THEYIYNAKL HOUSE, CHITTAR, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- RP No.447 of 2010 in WP(C) No.11063/10 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated 3rd June 2010 Order This is a Petition, seeking review of the Judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.11063/10. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in OS No.27/10 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ranni. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants from trespassing into the way leading to the petitioner's property which is shown as Plaint item No.2. The petitioner claimed that it was the sole means of access to his property. Alleging that the defendants were trying to interfere with the right of way and trying to reduce its width, the suit was laid. 3. It is pointed out that along with the suit, a petition for temporary injunction was moved and the Court below passed an order of temporary injunction. In violation of the said order, when defendants 2 to 4 tried to remove RP 447/10 2 the rubble wall, the petitioner was constrained to move IA No.262/10, seeking a mandatory injunction. The court below granted an order in his favour. 4. It is pointed out that though the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.11063/10 was not a party to OS No.27/10, he was fully aware of the proceedings and so, it could not be said that the order was obtained behind his back. The learned counsel for the review petitioner points out that the writ petitioner could have taken up the matter in appeal or resorted to such other remedies available in law. The result of the present order passed by this Court is that the plaintiff does not have access to the outside world. It is, therefore, prayed that the order may be reviewed and recalled. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, pointed out that what this Court has done is to direct the lower Court to dispose of the IA on merits. By the said direction, no rights of the petitioner as such are now affected and there is no reason to review the order. RP 447/10 3 6. The learned counsel for the respondents appears to be right in his submission. While passing the Judgment, this Court has not adjudicated on the rights of the petitioner nor has it said anything about the order passed by the Court below. All that is said is that since an impleading petition has been filed, it is only appropriate that it be disposed of before implementing the order of injunction. No grounds are made out to review the Judgment passed by this Court. However, it is made clear that the impleading petition filed by the writ petitioner shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The RP is dismissed subject to the above observations. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP 447/10 4 RP 447/10 5