IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933 RP.No. 448 of 2011 IN O.P.(C) NO.1320 OF 2011 REVIEW PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS 1. SAROJINI AMMA,W/O.MUTHUKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA, VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. 2. THYAGARAJAN,S/O.MUTHUKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA,VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. 3. REGUNATHAN,S/O.MUTHUKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA,VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. 4. RAJALEKSHMI,D/O.MUTHUKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA,VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. 5. PRASANNAKUMAR,S/O.MUTHUKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA,VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. 6. PRADEEP,S/O.MUTHURKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA, VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. 7. PRASAD,S/O.MUTHUKRISHNAN ACHARY, MARANGATTUTHEKKETHARAYIL,PADA, VADAKKUMMURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691503. BY ADV. SMT.BINDU.C.G. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS 1. P.I.MOHAMMED SUJER,PATTOLIL PUTHENVEETTIL, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. 2. P.I.NOWSHAD,PATTOLIL PUTHENVEETTIL, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE,KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Review Petition NO. 448 of 2011 in O.P.(C) no.1320 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011 O R D E R The Original Petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 26.5.2011, directing the executing court to dispose of E.P.No.179 of 2009 in O.S.No.519 of 1984, Munsiff's Court, Karunagappally, expeditiously. In the judgment, it was noticed that though notice was served on the respondents, there was no appearance. 2. The respondents in the Original Petition have filed this Review Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners were heard touching upon the merits of the Original Petition as well. Since the direction issued as per the judgment is only to dispose of the Execution Petition filed in 2009 expeditiously, no further change is required in the judgment. Therefore, it is not necessary to allow the Review Petition. The Review Petition is, accordingly, closed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/