IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 659 of 2008(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16240/2008 Dated 30/05/2008 .................... PETITIONER/PETITIONER: --------------------- VINOD, S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, CHEMPAKASSERIL, KANDIYOOR, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.R.PADMAKUMAR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. K.S.R.T.C.., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. ASST. TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KARUNAGAPPALY. BY SHRI.K.PRABHAKARAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.No.659/2008 in W.P(C).No.16240/2008 ================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner against my judgment dated 30.5.2008. The contention raised is that now that the suit filed by the petitioner, the pendency of which was the reason for rendering the judgment dated 30.5.2008, is no longer pending, this writ petition may be considered on merits. The petitioner filed a writ appeal against my judgment in which it is stated thus: “In the appeal, the learned counsel Sri.Pradeep appearing for the appellant contends that when the matter was decided by the learned single Judge, no suit was pending and as such there were no parallel proceedings.” This itself is not correct because at the time of rendering the judgment the counsel for the petitioner admitted before me that suit was still pending. In this connection it may be noted that both my judgment and Annexure I judgment in the suit are dated 30.5.2008. The petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Arunia r.p.659/08 2 Baruah v. Union of India and others reported in 2007 (6) SCC 120. I am not satisfied that the facts of that case are identical to those in this case. In any event, by Annexure 1 judgment the suit was dismissed as not-pressed. When the petitioner allows the suit to be dismissed as not-pressed, that means that he has abandoned his claim against the respondents. He has also not sought leave of the Court to pursue this writ petition. That being so, it should be assumed that the petitioner has abandoned his claim which is the subject matter of this writ petition also. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this review petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge r.p.659/08 3