IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND NOVEMBER 2009 / 11TH KARTHIKA 1931 RP.No. 896 of 2009(P) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.21561/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- GEORGE THOMAS, PULIKKAL HOUSE, MANIPUZHA, VENKURINJI P.O., ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTICORRUPTION BUREAU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, PANCHAYAT DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, ERUMELI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERUMELI P.O., KOTTAYAM. 4. RIYAS MUHAMMED, THADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ERUMELI P.O., CHARALA, KOTTAYAM. ADVS. SRI. RANJIT SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= R.P. No. 896 of 2009 in W. P (C) No. 21561 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd November, 2009. O R D E R This review petition is filed by the petitioner in the writ petition seeking to review my judgment dated 23-5-2009 in that writ petition. 2. I disposed of the writ petition by Annexure A1 judgment as follows: “The counsel for the petitioner is absent. The 4th respondent points out that for the same relief as prayed for this writ petition, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(C).No. 19369/2006, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, by Ext.P8 judgment. According to the counsel for the 4th respondent, the petitioner cannot therefore, file another writ petition on the same cause of action. I find considerable merit in the contention raised by the 4th respondent. The petitioner having approached this Court on the same cause of action earlier and suffered Ext.P8 judgment, he cannot file another writ petition on the same cause of action. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner's contention is that since counsel for the petitioner was absent owing to circumstances beyond his control, the petitioner could not place the petitioner's case appropriately before this Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition. According to the petitioner, although the petitioner had earlier filed W.P(C) No. 19369/2006, that was dismissed by Ext. P8 judgment for default and therefore that judgment would not operate as res judicta for filing another writ petition since the dismissal was not on merits. R.P.. No. 896/2009 -: 2 :- 2. I have heard all parties concerned. 3. I am of opinion that when a writ petition is dismissed for default, the remedy of the petitioner is to file a petition to restore the same to file. Therefore, without prejudice to that right, this review petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.