IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2009 / 30TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 975 of 2009(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.24244/2009 Dated 24/08/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.C.: ---------------------------------------------------- VILASINI AMMA, D/O.MADHAVI AMMA, RESIDING AT NAGA ANANTHANILAYAM, THEKKE GRAMAM, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. SRI.RAMACHANDRA MENON, S/O.BHAGEERATHI AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 2. SRI.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.BHAGEERATHY AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 3. SMT.REMANI, D/O.BHAGEERATHY AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 4. SRI.CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.BHAGEERATHY AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 5. SRI.SIVARAMA MENON, S/O.BHAGEERATHY AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. 6. SRI.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, S/O.KALYANIKUTTY AMMA, VARAVEER VEEDU, CHITTUR VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK. B6 BY SENIOR ADV.MR.V.CHITAMBARESH ADV.MR.T.C.SURESHMENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.975 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.24244 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 22nd October, 2009 ORDER The review petition is filed by the petitioner in the above writ petition, which was disposed by judgment dated 24.8.2009. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has already preferred an appeal against the order of sale passed by the court and she genuinely apprehends that the observations made in the judgment may impair her cause to be agitated in that appeal. Learned counsel seeks for only an observation/direction that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has to be disposed untrammelled by the observations made in the judgment passed in the writ petition. Though I find no reason for the apprehension canvassed by the petitioner as the appeal has to be disposed on its merits and not on the basis of any observation made in the judgment rendered in the writ petition, having regard to the submissions made by the counsel, I make it clear that none of the observations made in the judgment shall have any bearing or reflection in the disposal of the appeal which is stated to have been RP No.975/09 - 2 - preferred by the petitioner, on its merits. Subject to the above observation, the review petition is closed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE