IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 RP.No. 368 of 2009 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN RSA.343/2008 Dated 11/02/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS: 1. VASU, S/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING IN VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. RAJAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. SARADHA, D/O. AYYAPPAN, MANNOR AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. PUSHPA, D/O.AYYAPPAN, DO. DO. 3. THANKAM, D/O. AYYAPPAN, RESIDING IN VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 4. PREMA, D/O. AYYAPPAN, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 5. HYMA, D/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING IN VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 6. REMA,D/O.AYYAPPAN, RESIDING IN VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM KOZHIKODE TALUK. 7. SUDHA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 8. DINESAN,NALLALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 9. BALAGOPALAN, NALLALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 10. LATHIKA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 11. BEENA, NALLALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 12. SUDHEER, NALLALAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 13. SHEELA, NALLALMA AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 14. BABU,VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 15. ANIL, VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 16. RANI, VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- R.P.No.368 of 2009 in R.S.A.No.343 of 2008 -------------------------- ORDER Heard counsel for the review petitioners. 2. The judgment in the case was pronounced in open court on 11.2.2009, wherein, all the contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellants/petitioners have been considered. The learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners tracing out something in the deposition at a subsequent stage is not a ground to review the judgment. In the memorandum of appeal filed before this Court also no ground had been taken to the effect that any admission made by the contesting party was omitted to be considered by the courts below and reservation ought to have been granted in favour of the appellants/petitioners by reason of the said admission. Further, on a perusal of the deposition of PW1/the plaintiff, produced by the appellants/petitioners along with the review RP 368/09 2 petition, it is seen that to the question put to PW1 as to whether the building in occupation of the fourth defendant Rajan is not one put up by him, PW1, the plaintiff, has answered denying the suggestion that it was so constructed demolishing two rooms from Valiyaveedu, referring to the building in existence. PW1 has further answered that the kitchen of the house in occupation of the first defendant Vasu is put up by him. Putting up a kitchen attached to the main house does not by itself give any special right to claim reservation for the building. Similarly, demolition of two rooms and putting up two rooms in the place of the demolished rooms also does not give any special right to the fourth defendant. Thus, in any view of the matter, there is no merit at all in this review petition. In the result, I dismiss this review petition. 23rd May, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv