IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 955 of 2006(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.39705/2003 Dated 03/10/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------ 1. * THOTTATHIL DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.NARAYANAN KURUP, MANTHARATHOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.MANTHARATHOOR, VIA.PUTHIPPANAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL.2. GOURI AMMA, W/O.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, AGED 62 YEARS, (PO) MANTHARATHOOR (VIA) PUTHIPPANAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. 3. T.C.SATHIYANATHAN, S/O. DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 45 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, (PO) MANTHARATHOOR (VIA) PUTHIPPANAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. 4. SARMILA.T.C., D/O.DAMODARAN NAMBIAR, AGED 43 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, (PO) MANTHARATHOOR (VIA) PUTHIPPANAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADDL. 5. SHEENA.T.C. AGED 30 YEARS, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, (PO) MANTHARATHOOR (VIA) PUTHIPPANAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (ADDL.APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL APPELLANTS AS PER ORDER DATED 1.7.2008 IN I.A.NO.347/2008) BY ADV. SRI.C.VALSALAN SMT.THUSHARA.V RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ANIMANGALATH AMMALU AMMA, D/O.RAMAKURUP, EDAVALATH KANDI, MANTHARATHOOR P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R.P.No.955/2006 : 2 : 2. SON KUMARAN NAMBIAR, S/O.NARAYANA KURUP, EDAVALATH KANDI, MANTHARATHOOR P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. BROTHER NAAMBATH MEETHAL APPUNNI NAMBIAR, MANTHARATHOOR P.O., VADAKARA TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- R.P.No.955 of 2006 in W.P.(C) No.39705/2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st July, 2008. O R D E R This petition is filed to review the judgment in W.P.(C) No.39705 of 2003, dated 3.10.2006. The writ petition was filed to quash Ext.P3 order passed by learned Munsiff in I.A.No.658 of 2003. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was heard. 3. As seen from Ext.P3 order, as well as Ext.P2, copy of I.A.No.658/2003, subsequent to the passing of the final decree, petitioner in Ext.P2 application filed an execution petition to take delivery of the property allotted to him under the final decree. Amin deputed to effect delivery of the property expressed his inability to locate the property due to non-identifiable nature of the property. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, execution petition was thereafter dismissed as not pressed. It is thereafter Ext.P2 petition was filed. The prayer in Ext.P2 petition is to depute the same Commissioner who submitted Ext.C2 report, which RP.No.955 of 2006 2 forms part of the final decree, to prepare a plan, in accordance with the actual lie of the property. If the case of the petitioner is that there is any mistake in the final decree or the plan prepared by the Commissioner, remedy of the petitioners is to file a petition to review the final decree and not to seek appoint a commission in the suit, which has already been disposed by the final decree. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to review the judgment dated 3.10.2006. Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.