IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1075 OF 2008(H) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36615/2007 Dated 09/07/2008 OS.33/2005 of MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WRIT PETITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ABDULLA HAJI, S/O.MUNDAROTTU KANUHAPPU AJI, KAPPUR (POST), OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PIN 679 552. 2. K.P.HASSAN, S/O.KOONAMPARAMBIL HYDRU AJI, KAPPUR (POST), OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN 679 552. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONER IN THE WRIT PETITION/3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED @ KUTTIPPA, S/O.KOONAM PARAMBIL LATE MOIDUNNI, KAPPUR AMSOM, DESOM, KAPPUR POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. IBRAHIM, S/O.KOONAMPARAMBIL MUHAMMED, KAPPUR (POST), OTTAPALAM TALUK. PIN 679 552. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P. NO. 1075 OF 2008 IN W.P.(C) NO.36615 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Review petitioners are respondents 1 and 2 in Writ Petition 36615 of 2007. Petition is filed to review the judgment dated 9.7.2008. Though petitioners were not heard, they were served with notice and they failed to appear. As per the judgment permission granted by the learned Munsiff to construct laterite wall to demarcate the southern boundary of varambu of item No.2 of plaint schedule property was set aside directing learned Munsiff to dispose the suit expeditiously. This Court interfered with the order passed by the Munsiff because before ascertaining the width of the varambu it is not possible to permit petitioners herein to construct the laterite wall as granted under Ext.P6 order. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioners is that if the laterite wall is not constructed the materials collected would get damaged and petitioners have no intention to encroach upon any portion of the property of first respondent/plaintiff. RP1075/08 in WP(C)36615/07 2 2. I do not find any apparent error or sufficient reason to review the judgment dated 9.7.2008. If the learned Munsiff is not in a position to dispose the suit within two months from today, petitioners are granted liberty to move the learned Munsiff for permission to construct the wall. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-