IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2011 / 7TH CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 230 of 2011 IN CRP.746/05 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.746/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): REVISIOIN PETITIONERS -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ADITHIAM PARAMBATHMEETHAL SAROJINI, W/O.LATE REMAKRISHNAN,PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. AJITH KUMAR,S/O.SAROJINI, PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. MURALEEDHARAN,S/O.SAROJINI, PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. SAHJI,S/O.SAROJINI, PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. SREEJA,D/O.SAROJINI, PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. SWAPNA,D/O.SAROJINI, PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. 7. NEENA,D/O.SAROJINI, PERUMANNA AMSOM AND DESOM, PO PERUMANNA,KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN R.P.230/11 -2- RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- KARUMPANAKKAL EDAKKAD KUNHOYI, RELIGIOUS WAKF,REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.E.MANSOOR,S/O.K.R.KUTTIKOYA,AGED 30 YEARS R/AT POYILIL HOUSE, PERUMANNA AMSOM, VELLAYIKODE DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK 673 026. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ R. P. No.230 of 2011 in in C. R. P. No.746 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of March, 2011 ORDER Pius C. Kuriakose, J Even though apparently attractive grounds are raised and Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, the learned counsel for the review petitioners addressed very strenuous arguments, we do not find any ground for invoking our jurisdiction of review under Order 47 Rule 1. Sri.Kunhikrishnan's submission was that the review petitioners never admitted that the property in question is Wakf property. Since the question whether the property is Wakf property is a fundamental issue, this Court alone is competent to examine the correctness of the above issue presently answered in favour of the respondent. Even the above submissions do not persuade us to review our order. We dismiss the R.P. permitting the review petitioners R. P. No.230 of 2011 -2- to agitate all contentions which are legally permissible before the Civil Court in the prospective suit. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-