IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 RP.No. 571 of 2008(K) --------------------- (WPC NO.17741/2005) REVIEW PETITIONERS/ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5,6,&7 I ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR. MALLIKA GOPINATH, GOKUL MOSQUE LANE KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MR. MANOJ GOPINATH, GOKUL MOSQUE LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DR. MAHESH GOPINATH, GOKUL MOSQUE LANE, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:- ----------------------------------------------- 1. G.RAMESHAN, SUMTHRUPATHI, RAJADHANI BUILDINGS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. C.P. ABILASH @ RAMESH, RESIDING AT "SUMTHRUPATHI" EAST FORT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. R.SUMATHI, "KUSTHUBHAM" T.C. NO.27/856, ATTANI LANE, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. G.RAJU, "KARTHIKA" KLLUKKOODU, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. R.SUDHA BHARA,T.C.30/340, KALLUMOODU, ANAYARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.V.P.K.PANICKER ( R1 & R2) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- R.P.No. 571 of 2008 IN WPC NO.17741/2005 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July , 2008 O R D E R Review of my judgment is sought for on the reason that the judgment was passed without noticing the fact that the 4th respondent in the writ petition had passed away and her legal representatives viz.. the review petitioners had already been impleaded as supplemental respondents Nos. 5,6 and 7. The learned counsel for the Review Petitioner is certainly right in submitting that while passing the judgment this court was under the impression that the 4th respondent was alive and remained to be served with notice. It was certainly without noticing the impleadment of the review petitioners as legal heirs of the 4th respondent that the judgment was passed. 2. Considering the fact that the 4th respondent in the writ petition had passed away and the review petitioners had already been impleaded as legal heirs, this Review Petition will stand allowed to the extent of deleting the first paragraph of my judgment and substituting the same with the following paragraph; “ This case has been sent up in the defect R.P. No.571/2008 2 list as though the 4th respondent is yet to be served with notice. But the 4th respondent is no more and her legal heirs have already been impleaded as supplemental respondents 4 to 7. The registry will carry out corrections in the cause title regarding the impleadment of supplemental respondent 4 to 7”. The Review Petition is allowed to the above limited extent. In all other respects the judgment will stand confirmed. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE dpk