IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 367 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRP.514/2008 Dated 10/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- MARY IRIN @ RANI MATHEW, @ RANI ABEY VARGHESE, PONNATHIL HOUSE, A.K.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T) SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. PRABHAVATHY AMMA.V, W/O.GOPI, PRABHAVILASAM, V.P.1/50 OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, PEROORKADA, A.K.G.NAGAR ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.GOPI, S/O.RAJAPPAN, PRABHAVILASAM, V.P.1/50 OPPOSITE TO PETROL PUMP, PEROORKADA, A.K.G.NAGAR ROAD, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.R.T.PRADEEP R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------------- RP No.367 of 2010 in CRP No.514 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated 8th April 2010 Order The first respondent in CRP No.514/08 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.03.2010, has come up in RP. 2. It is pointed out that this Court, while disposing of the CRP, made an observation in the order that no evidence had been adduced and that the parties were not afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence. According to the review petitioner, this is factually incorrect. The enquiry report conducted by the Revenue Inspector was available with the Tribunal. It is also submitted that a proof affidavit filed by the first applicant was also before the Tribunal. It was based on those materials that the Tribunal passed the order. The Appellate Court also considered the available materials on record and then came to a conclusion, it is submitted. RP 367/10 2 3. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. It is contended that the case was posted on two occasions and as things stood thus, one of the petitioners filed a petition for advance hearing. On that day, the case was taken up and disposed of without hearing the parties. It was also contended that the parties were not given an opportunity to adduce evidence. 4. It was after perusing all the available records and after hearing both sides that the order was passed, in the presence of the counsel on both sides. At that time, nobody had a case that no evidence had been adduced. 5. It was not as if the parties were unaware of any of the facts or the details of the case. The Judgment was pronounced in the presence of the counsel on both sides and no objection whatsoever was taken. No grounds are made out to review the order passed by this Court. This RP is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE RP 367/10 3 sta RP 367/10 4