IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 RP.No. 432 of 2011(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OPC.356/2011 Dated 09/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): IST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- GIREESAN,AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, SANTHI BHAVAN,THRITHALA PADINJAREVETTIL HOUSE, ENKAKKAD,WADAKKANCHERY,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER:RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMEDALI,S/O.BAPPUTTY,CHERUVAYIL HOUSE,MANKARA DESOM, ENKAKKAD VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 2. UMMER,S/O.CHATHAMKOTTIL MANI @ MUHAMMED, ENKAKKAD,WADAKKANCHERY,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 3. JAMAL,S/O.CHATHAMKOTTIL MANI @ MUHAMMED, ENKAKKAD,WADAKKANCHERY,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. 4. MANI @ MUHAMMED,S/O.ADIMU,CHATHAMKOTTIL, ENKAKKAD,WADAKKANCHERY,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADV. SRI. G. SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.368/2011 IN RP.NO.432/2011 DISMISSED 16/06/2011 SD/- HARUN - UL - RASHID, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ R.P.No.432 Of 2011 in O.P.(C).No.356 of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011. O R D E R The first defendant in O.S.No.1244/2008 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Thrissur is the review petitioner. The review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 9.3.2011 in O.P.(C).No.356/2011. 2. O.P(C).No.356/2011 was filed by the first plaintiff in the suit. Suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the sale deed No.163/2002 is only a nominal and sham document, for cancellation of the said instrument and for other consequential reliefs. The application filed by the plaintiff for interim relief was dismissed by the trial court. The said order was challenged in appeal before the 1st Additional District Court, Thrissur. The appellate court confirmed the order passed by the learned Sub Judge and dismissed the appeal. This Court, after hearing both sides, took the view that since the contentions of the parties were examined by the facts finding courts, there is no ::2:: R.P.No.432 Of 2011 necessity to consider the matter again on merits. Therefore, without taking into the merits of the case, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the learned Sub Judge to try and dispose of the suit within six months. On the basis of the directions issued, the parties entered appearance on 22.3.2011 as directed by this Court in the judgment. The learned Sub Judge adjourned the case again and listed the case during the month of June. 3. The grievance of the review petitioner is that in I.A.No.4304/2009, filed by him to sent a document to an expert for his opinion, no orders has been passed by the learned Sub Judge. The learned counsel submits that the document is a very crucial and has bearing on the merits of the case. Therefore, the trial of the suit, without the disposal of the I.A cause serious prejudice to him. 4. I.A.No.4304/2009 was filed in the year 2009. The petitioner has not taken any effective or serious steps for sending the document referred to in the I.A for expert opinion. This Court, in the judgment dated 9.3.2011 in O.P(C).No.356/2011, ::3:: R.P.No.432 Of 2011 directed the learned Sub Judge to try and dispose of the suit on or before 30.6.2011. The petitioner has no case that he has requested the learned Sub Judge during March, April or May to dispose of the I.A.No.4304/2009. The learned Sub Judge listed the case in the special list for trial during the month of March itself. The case was in the special list for trial on 15/06 and today. Only today, the petitioner moved this Court seeking to review the judgment passed by this Court which directs the trial court to dispose of the case on or before 30.6.2011. From the facts I have stated above, I find that there is no bonafides in filing the review petition. There is every chance that the motion of the petitioner is for protracting the trial of the case. In the facts, I find that the petitioner has not made out any ground to review the judgment in O.P.(C).No.356/2011. The review petition is dismissed in limine. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-