IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2007 / 27TH PAUSHA 1928 RP.No. 782 of 2006(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.488/2005 Dated 31/03/2006 AS.275/1996 of D.C & SESSIONS COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... REVISION PETITIONER/REGULAR SECOND APPELLANT/ APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF : ------------------------------------------------------------- CHANDRAMATHI, VILAVILAKATHU VEEDU, KALLINGAL, KULATHOOR P.O., KAZHAKOOTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENTS: REGULAR SECOND RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS: --------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT AVAYIKKAL VEEDU, KALLINGAL, KULATHOOR P.O., KAZHAKOOTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MADHU, AGED 35 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, MEENA HOTEL, VETTU ROAD, ALUMMOODU JUNCTION, KANIYAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 782 OF 2006 IN RSA 488 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2007. O R D E R This is a petition filed to review the judgment and decree of this Court in RSA 488/05. The said appeal was dismissed by me at the stage of admission on the ground that there is no substantial question of law involved. In my judgment dated 31/3/06 I had given reasons and held that there is no perversity or mis-appreciation or mis- reading of evidence. The Apex Court had already laid down the principles to be followed in a second appeal in the decision reported in Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki (AIR 2006 SC 1975). It has been held therein that the second appellate Court shall not act as a third trial Court on facts and it shall not be another dice in the gamble. It is well settled by the Apex Court that the second appellate Court is not entitled to reappreciate the evidence and even if another view is possible it is not entitled to take a different view from the concurrent finding of facts. So, only by applying the broad principles laid down, I found that there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal and hence dismissed the appeal. So, there is no error R.P. 782 OF 2006 IN RSA 488 OF 2005 -Page numbers- apparent on the face of the record or that any matter has come to the notice of the parties, in spite of due diligence, after the judgment of this Court. Therefore, the review lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-