IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 RP.No. 406 of 2008(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.36698/2007 Dated 12/12/2007 CMA.12/2007 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ----------------- RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, S/O GANGADHARAN PILLAI, VALSALA MANDIRAM, CHARUVIL THOPPIL, THEVALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT: --------------- KAMALAMMA AMMA, W/O APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, MANAYIL VEEDU (NARANATH VEEDU) MAYILKULANGARA CHERY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 406 OF 2008 IN WPC 36698 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008. O R D E R By my order dated 12th December, 2007 I had held that the finding of the District Judge is not incorrect. It is observed by me that the writ petitioner can approach the trial Court as directed by the High Court for redressal of the grievance by reopening the decree and the Court shall, when it is filed, consider the same in accordance with law and dispose it of on merits. I have also observed that if there is any legal obstruction such as question of limitation that may be considered sympathetically by the Court below. Sympathetically never mean that undue sympathy. It only means that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of that particular case if the Court feels that technicality shall not defeat the ends of justice, sympathetic view has to be taken. I do not find any ground to review my order under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and therefore the R.P. lacks merit and it is dismissed. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [True copy] P.A. to Judge.