IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 888 of 2009(E) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.4451/2009 Dated 11/08/2009 OS.75/2006 of MUNI-MAGI.COURT,THODUPUZHA .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- ABDUL RAZAK,S/O.MUHAMMED,AGED 66 YEARS, ANTHEENATTU HOUSE,THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- PHILOMINA,W/O.MATHEW,KOTTARATHUKUDI HOUSE,KANJALLOOR KARA,MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV.SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAN FOR RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------- R.P.No.888 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of September 2009 ------------------------------------- ORDER The review petition is filed against the judgment dated 11/08/2009 passed by this court in the above writ petition. That writ petition was filed challenging an order passed by the court below allowing an application for appointment of a commission moved by the respondent / plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, possession and injunction. Description of the plaint property was challenged by the defendant in his written statement. In the light of the contentions so raised, plaintiff applied for appointment of a commission to measure out the suit property with the assistance of a surveyor. The court below allowed that application negativing the objections raised by the defendant. Correctness of that order was challenged in the writ petition and, after hearing both sides, as I found no impropriety or R.P.No.888 OF 2009 illegality in the order passed by the court below to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court, the writ petition was dismissed. The present petition has been filed to review the judgment so rendered in the writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff is only purchaser of some shares from the coowners of the property and her remedy is to file a suit for partition and not to claim declaration of title as done in the present suit. Whatever objections the petitioner has against the suit claim raised by the plaintiff, he can canvass them in the trial of the suit. A review of the judgment rendered by the court is not permissible to raise objections on the merits of a suit or proceeding or for rehearing the decision already rendered by the court. Review petition lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Sd/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv