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. 375 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7112/2010 Dated 05/03/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- K.V.RAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.LATE P.C. VARGHESE,SNEHA BHAVAN,ULLANNUR MURI,KULANADA (V) KOZHENCHERRY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA (D),FORMERLY M.D.OF BEST HOME CONTRACTING LLC,P.B.NO.25668,UAE, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,SIJO K.R,AGED 35.S/O. RAPHEAL K.T.KADAVIL(H)CHEERACHI DESOM,THRISSUR D.T BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- SABAH ENGINEERING AND MARINE SERVICE,UAE BASED SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OWNED BY MOHAMMED RAMDAN MOUSA AL SAWJANI,AGED 62,P.B.NO.44 SHAJAJ,UAE REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY KUTTUMEL JOB JOSEPH,AGED 58,S/O.JOB,KALARICKAL(H)INDUSTRIAL NAGAR P.O.VEROOR,CHANGANACHERRY TALUK,KOTTAYAM D.T BY ADV. MR.K.SHAJ 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.375 of 2010 in WP(C)No. 7112/10 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated 8th April 2010 Order In this Review Petition, the petitioner prays for a clarification of the Judgment of this Court dated 05.03.2010 in the Writ Petition. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta to take further steps on Ext.P3 execution petition and to dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. The review petitioner submits that the OP was filed suppressing the pendency of another suit challenging the decree in execution and also about the pendency of Order XXI Rule 29 petition. The complaint is that the executing court is not hearing the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 29 because of the direction to dispose of the execution petition within six months. RP 375/10 2 Therefore, he prays for reviewing the Judgment of this Court. 3. There is no prohibition in the Judgment of this Court, restraining the Court from considering any application filed by any party before it. It is for the court below to decide whether it should be heard or not. This Court need not interfere with the discretion of the Court below. This Review Petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP 375/10 3