IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 RP.No. 1082 of 2006 --------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRP.92/2005 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: THRIKKALAYOOR DEVASWOM REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1. PALIYIL NANIYAMMA, D/O. UNNICHIRA AMMA, THRIKKALAYOOR AMSOM, KIZHAKKUPARAMBU DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. THEKKAMBALATH UNNI, S/O. PARU AMMA, POORNAMGOTTARI HOUSE, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THACHAMBALATHU PRABHAKARAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, POORNAMGOTTARI HOUSE, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THACHAMBALATHU CHITHAMBARAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, PANNIKKODE P.O., VIA. MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 5. THACHAMBALATH VASUDEVAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, PANNIKKODE P.O., VIA. MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 6. THACHAMBALATH BHASKARAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, PANNIKKODE P.O., VIA. MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 7. THACHAMBALATH VISWANATHAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, PANNIKKODE P.O., VIA. MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 8. THACHAMBALATHU MUKUNDAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, PANNIKKODE P.O., VIA. MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 9. THACHAMBALATH MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, POORNAMGOTTARY HOUSE, THRIKKALIYOOR, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. THACHAMBALATH BHANUMATHI, D/O. SANKUNNI MARAR, POORNAMGOTTARY HOUSE, THRIKKALIYOOR, AREEKODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. --------------------------------------- R.P.No.1082 of 2006 in C.R.P.No.92 of 2005 -------------------------------------- ORDER As per order dated 29.9.2006, revision was allowed setting aside the order passed by the executing court holding that EP is barred by limitation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents were heard. 3. Contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that law of limitation is an objective law and prima facie, as rules of procedures, the same do not create any right in favour of any person nor do they define or create causes of action but simply prescribe that remedy can be exercised only up to a certain period and not subsequently and recoverability of a property belonging to a religious institution pre-suppresses obtaining a favourable decree for possession and Section 94 of H.R. & C.E. Act is a beneficial provision intended to protect the interest of the Devaswom and therefore, the order is to be reviewed. RP 1082/06 2 4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I find no apparent error or any other reason to review the order as sought for. The scope of a review petition is limited. By filing a review petition, petitioner cannot challenge the correctness of the order. If petitioner is aggrieved by the order, remedy is to challenge it before the Honourable Supreme Court. Review petition is dismissed. 28th January, 2011 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv