IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 RP.No. 1136 of 2009 ---------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WA.1451/2008 Dated 14/09/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: -------------------------------------------------- P.K. MOOSA, S/O. ISMAIL, REHMAT HOUSE, PERINGAVU. VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, MALAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DIST. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J. ------------------------------------------ R.P.No.1136 of 2009 in W.A. No.1451 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 ORDER S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking reconsideration of W.A.No.1451 of 2008 disposed of by this Bench on 14th September, 2009 after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader and perusing the records. 2. At the outset, it is to be noted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is very limited. Only on grounds like apparent error on the face of records, typographical error, etc. review jurisdiction can be invoked. However, the grounds raised in the present review petition as well as the contentions urged before us by the learned counsel indicate that the attempt by way of review petition is to reopen the entire case on the ground that the learned Single Judge did not deem it fit to reject outrightly the prayer of the appellant/petitioner to R.P.No.1136 of 2009 - 2 - approach the authority concerned through Ext.P2 application. 3. Taking into consideration the chronological history and the repeated attempts of the appellant, we found it necessary to state in the impugned judgment thus: “The obvious attempt of the appellant is to re-open an issue which had become final long time ago. ............ Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge. Appellant cannot be allowed to re-open an issue which had been settled way back in 1979, in the guise of correction of mistake as provided under Rule 136A of the Rules.” 4. In view of this definite finding of ours, we do not find that the prayer for review is maintainable and hence the same is rejected. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice A.K. Basheer, Judge vns