IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 RP.No. 1050 of 2008(V) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27904/2008 Dated 22/09/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------------- 1. MOLY PHILIP, W/O.C.O.PHILIP CHUMATHARAVELIL HOUSE, CHENGAROOR PO., PUTHUSSERY MURI, KALLOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. C.O. PHILIP CHUMATHARAVELIL HOUSE CHENGAROOR PO., PUTHUSSERY MURI, KALLOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK. PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM SAMSON RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- CHERIAN VARGHESE, VALLAKANDATHIL HOUSE CHENGAROOR PO., PUTHUSSERY MURI, KALLOPPARA VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.No.1050 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22 nd day of October, 2008 ORDER This is a petition to review the judgment of this Court dated 22.9.08 in W.P.(c)No.27904 of 2008 as per which this Court refused to interfere with Ext.P6 order by which the trial court had disallowed the application filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners to amend the plaint. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing strong relevance on the decision in Rajesh Kumar Agarwal & others v.K.K.Modi and others (AIR 2006 SC 1647 and Usha Devi v.Rijwan Ahamd 2008(3) SCC 717) would contend that by dismissing the writ petition this Court was endorsing the observations recorded by the court below regarding the merits of the amendment which should not have been gone into and a petition for amendment of the plaint is liable to be either allowed or dismissed without considering the merits of the case sought to be incorporated through the amendment. 3. The court below while dismissing the application to amend the plaint had considered the rival contentions of the parties and the conduct of the plaintiffs. It was in full agreement with the findings of R.P.No.1050 of 2008 2 the court below that this Court refused to interfere with Ext.P6 order. Hence, I do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition except to emphasize that the court below shall not be influenced by the findings and the observations in Ext.P6 as well as in the judgment of this Court while disposing of the suit itself. Dated this the 22 nd day of October, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj