IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 696 of 2009(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15679/2009 Dated 12/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------------------------- ALL KERALA TILE MANUFACTURES FEDERATION, POONKUNNAM.PO,THRISSUR,REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT D.ANANTHASUBRAMANIAM,S/O.DEVARAJA IYER, AGED 77 YEARS. BY ADV. MR.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. VARGHESE,S/O.OUSEPH,KANICHIKKATTIL HOUSE,EAST CHALAKUDY DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. 4. GEOLOGIST,DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER,EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, EAST CHALAKUDY,THRISSUR. 6. AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,KRISHI BHAVAN, MUNICIPAL JUBILEE BUILDING,CHALAKUDY. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.696 of 2009 in W.P.(C) No.15679 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 27th July, 2009 ORDER The Review Petition is filed against the judgment dated 12.6.2009 in W.P.C.No.15679 of 2009. The petitioner in the Writ Petition seeks review of the judgment on the basis of the observations made by this court in the judgment to the effect that the decision in the suit some times may have its consequences on the petitioner and its members and also while passing the impugned judgment some reported decisions have not been taken into consideration. A review of the judgment is permissible only where there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment or from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time when the order was passed or for any other sufficient reason justifying such an exercise is necessary to advance the ends of justice. None of the grounds stated by the petitioner is sufficient for review of the judgment rendered by this court. The challenge against the order of the court below holding that the applicant is not entitled to be impleaded as an additional defendant as R.P.No.696/09 - 2 - requested for in his application was negatived by this court after considering the merit of the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant and finding that the order of the court below is proper and correct. Any observation made in that judgment will not confer any right on the applicant to seek a review of the judgment. The Review Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE