IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 12TH DECEMBER 2008 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA 1930 RP.No. 751 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN SA.252/2002 Dated 07/03/2008 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: ---------------------- PUTHIYATH AYDRU, S/O.MAYIN. PO.KARULAI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR SRI.ASHIM.M.V. RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ASARATH VEERAN, S/O.RAYANKUTTY THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE, PO.KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOHAMMED IQUBAL, S/O.RAYANKUTTY THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE PO.KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MUJEEB, S/O.RAYANKUTTY, THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE PO.KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. KUNHAMMU, D/O.RAYANKUTTY, THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE PO.KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PATHUNNIKUTTY UMMA, W/O.LATE RAYANKUTTY THANDUPURAKKAL HOUSE PO.KARULAI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH FOR R1 TO 5 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/12/2008, ALONG WITH RP NO. 753 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ R.P.NO.751 OF 2008 IN S.A NO.252 OF 2002 & R.P. NO.753 OF 2008 IN S.A. NO.250 OF2002 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The appellants in the respective Second Appeals are the review petitioners. S.A. Nos. 250 and 252 of 2002 were heard in detail and judgment was delivered on 7.3.2008. The grounds now raised seeking review of the judgment have all been urged before me while hearing the Second Appeals. I had considered the same and confirmed the findings of the court below and the reasons for such conclusion has been discussed in detail in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. This Court finds that no substantial question of law arises for decision. This Court also finds that the findings recorded are purely on facts based on materials. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners reagitated the very same contentions and contended that the judgment is hit by apparent errors on the face of the record and that has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice as the review petitioners are sought to be thrown out 2 of the small holding which they had occupied for about 50 years. As stated already, the questions were answered on merits in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. In find no error or apparent injustice caused to any parties by confirming the decision taken by the court below. I find no merit in the Review Petitions. The Review Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE) sp/ 3 HAURN-UL-RASHID, J. R.P.NO.751/08 IN S.A.NO.252/02 R.P.NO.753 /08 INS.A.NO.250/02 O R D E R 12th December, 2008