IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2010 / 20TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).NO. 25192 OF 2010(O) ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2008 IN IA.895/07 IN OS.482/1990 OF I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECTS, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROJECT CIRCLE, MUVATTUPUZHA(NOW AT PIRAVOM) BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M.R. SABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. SARAMMA ABRAHAM, W/O.A.T.ABRAHAM, THALIYACHIRA(H)VELIYANADU PO, ERNAKULAM-682 319. 2. SUNILA WILSON, D/O.A.T.ABRAHAM, PULLYAT HOUSE,PANGARAPPILLY PO, MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 314. 3. SUJA REJI, D/O.A.T.ABRAHAM, KANJIRATHINKAL VALAPPIL HOUSE, THIRUVANKULAM PO, ERNAKULAM-682 305. 4. BIJU ABRAHAM, S/O.A.T.ABRAHAM, THALIYACHIRA(HOUSE)VELIYANADU PO, ERNAKULAM-682 319. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== W.P(C) NO.25192 of 2010 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners challenge Ext.P5, order dated 09.12.2008 on I.A. No.895 of 2007 in O.S.No.482 of 1990 of the court of leaned Sub Judge, Ernakulam. Vide the impugned order, recording that petitioners conceded the application learned Sub Judge allowed the same and permitted respondents to amend the judgment and decree. According to the learned Government Pleader detailed objection (Ext.P4) was preferred to I.A.No.895 of 2007 and it is not correct to say that application was conceded by the Government Pleader who appeared for petitioners in the court below. 2. Order under challenge states that petitioners conceded the application. It is seen that the impugned order followed that concession if any. Petitioners cannot straight away come to this Court disputing correctness of a statement made by the learned Sub Judge in the impugned order that application was conceded by petitioners. If they have a case that no such concession was made, remedy is to seek review of the impugned order as provided under law. W.P(C) No.25192 of 2010 -: 2 :- Hence without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek review of the impugned order this Writ Petition is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv