IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 RP.No. 1174 of 2009(G) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.19506/2009 Dated 13/07/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): 4TH RESPONDENT ---------------------- KAITHAVALAPPIL KHADER HAJI, S/O. KOYA HAJI, VENGARA AMSOM, KUTTOOR DESOM,TIRURANGADI TALIK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ---------------------------------------------- 1. PALAMADATHIL KOTYAT PATHUMMA, W/O.LATE KOYISSAN ALAVI HAJI, VENGARA AMSOM, KUTTOOR DESOM, POST KUTTOOR NORTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST CHERUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, VENGARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGARA VILLAGE, POST VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR FOR R3 SRI.HARISH R. MENON FOR R3 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 1174 of 2009. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 20th day of July, 2010. O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 13-7-2009 in W.P(C) No. 19506/2009, which reads thus: “Alleging encroachment on the part of the 4th respondent on a public pathway, which according to the petitioner, is used by her and several others in the locality, Ext. P2 complaint has been filed before the Village officer as also before the Panchayat. 2. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to look into Ext. P2 and if after due enquiry the allegations are found to be correct, it shall be forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer and if found appropriate, proceedings shall be taken under Section 133 of the Cr. P.C. Needful shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner in the writ petition has not stated the facts correctly in the writ petition, which prompted this Court to pass the judgment without issuing notice to him. According to the petitioner in the review petition, if notice had been issued in the writ petition to him, who was the 4th respondent in the writ petition, and he was also heard, the judgment would have been different. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in the writ petition also. Insofar as the petitioner in the review petition, who was the 4th respondent in the writ petition, was not issued notice in the writ petition and he was not heard, I am satisfied that the judgment is R.P. No. 1174/2009 -: 2 :- liable to be reviewed. Accordingly, the judgment dated 13-7-2009 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to file. Post the writ petition for hearing along with Crl. R.P. No. 3118/2009. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.