IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 19 of 2011() ----------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN SA.292/1996 Dated 02/11/2010 .................... PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 2-6/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SARA ANNA, W/O. LUKOSE ISSAC, AMAKKULAM CHATHUPPU, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. ANNA MARIKUTTY, D/O. LUKOSE ANNA, W/O. LUKOSE ISSAC, AMAKKULAM CHATHUPPU, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. BABY ISSAC, S/O. LUKOSE ISSAC, AMAKKULAM CHATHUPPU, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. ANNA KUNJAMMA, D/O. LUKOSE ISSAC, AMAKKULAM CHATHUPPU, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. BAVAS ISSAC, S/O. LUKOSE ISSAC, AMAKKULAM CHATHUPPU, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF --------------------------------------------------------------- THEVIKUNJELI, PUTHUVAL PUTHEN VEEDU, NEAR AMBALAKADAVU, KULATHUPUZHA MURI, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-631 310. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.MARTHANDAN UNNITHAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ R.P.No.19 of 2011 in S.A.No.292 Of 1996 ---------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011. O R D E R Judgment dated 2.11.2010 in S.A.No.292 of 1996 is under challenge in this review petition. The review petitioners are the respondents 2 to 6 in the second appeal. Plaintiffs in O.S.No.185 of 1982 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Punalur are the appellants in the second appeal. After considering the contentions of the parties this Court held that for the ends of justice the case requires reconsideration and therefore directed the trial court to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, the case was remanded. 2. The review petitioners sought to review the judgment in the second appeal on the basis of grounds A to F raised in the review petition. Suit was filed by the plaintiffs for an injunction simplicitor claiming that she is in possession of the plaint schedule property and that the third defendant is occupying plaint schedule item No.2 shed with the permission from the plaintiff. This Court after elaborately discussing the contentions of the parties held that the question whether the plaintiff is ::2:: R.P.No.19 Of 2011 entitled to declaration of possessory right has not been considered properly by the lower appellate court. The trial court though found possession declined to grant relief stating that the Government is a necessary party. This Court observed that it is not necessary that the Government be made a party to the suit of this nature. This Court finding that the case of the plaintiff was not considered with reference to the materials on record and legal principles by both courts, in the interest of justice, remanded the case for fresh consideration. 3. I have perused the grounds raised in the review petition. All the contentions raised in the review petition are contentions touching the merits of the case. This Court considered all the relevant facts and found that the courts below have not decided the relevant questions properly therefore, remand was necessitated. I find that no valid grounds are made out by the review petitioners to review the judgment. The review petition is without any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-