IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 RP.No. 628 of 2010(I) ----------------------------- (TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, DTD. 08/03/2010 IN W.P.(C).NO.2185/2009) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------- MRS.MUTHULAKSHMI AMMA, D/O.LATE K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. SMT.RADHA KRISHNANUNNI, W/O.LATE KRISHNANUNNI, 'JAYASREE' SIVAPURI COMPOUND, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. JAYASREE, D/O.LATE.KRISHNANUNNI, 'JAYASREE'SIVAPURI COMPOUND,WAYANAD ROAD,KOZHIKODE. 3. REJASREE.D/O.LATE KRISHNANUNNI, 'JAYASREE'SIVAPURI COMPOUND,WAYANAD ROAD,KOZHIKODE. 4. JAYARAM,S/O.LATE KRISHNANUNNI, 'JAYASREE'SIVAPURI COMPOUND,WAYANAD ROAD,KOZHIKODE. 5. DR.K.P.JANARDHANAN,S/O.SREEDEVI AMMA, 1 SUDDAR STREET, CALCUTTA-700016. 6. DR.K.P.RAJAGOPAL, S/O.LATE K.P.SREEDEVI AMMA, SREELAKSHMI, NELLIKODE, CALICUT-17. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P. RAMACHANDRAN, R6 BY ADV. SRI. T. SETHUMADHAVAN. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. -------------------------------------------------- RP No.628/10 in WPC No.2185/09 -------------------------------------------------- Dated 2nd August 2010 Order This is a petition, seeking to review the Judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.2185/09 dated 08.03.2010. 2. The review petitioner is the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition was filed, seeking to set aside Ext.P1 order, which is the order in OS No.141/1985 of the Sub Court, Kozhikode. 3. The suit was one for partition. The Trial Court decreed the suit. The said Judgment and decree was set aside by the lower Appellate Court and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court. Thereafter, it so happened that the first defendant died and the second defendant based on her will, said to have been executed by the first defendant, sought to get himself impleaded as the sole legal heir. The will was found against and it was the said RP No.628/10 2 order that was assailed. In the Review Petition, it is stated as follows : “The writ petition was finally heard and disposed of by this Hon'ble Court vide Judgment dated 8.3.2010. It is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court did not consider the contentions taken in the Writ Petition as well as the evidence adduced by the petitioner before the court below.” In the same paragraph, it is stated as follows : “It is respectfully submitted that a finding on merits was not arrived by this Hon'ble Court and it is highly essential in the interest of justice to consider the claim on merit instead of leaving open the question as the petitioner can claim on the basis of the will in another suit or in other proceedings.” 4. This Court is found fault with for not considering the contentions in the Writ Petition on merits. To ascertain how far the said contention and complaints are true, one needs to refer to paragraph 3 of the Judgment passed by this Court on 08.03.2010. The said RP No.628/10 3 paragraph reads as follows : “At the time of hearing of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner restricted his submission to that the finding regarding the will in this proceeding may not dis-entitle him from agitating the claim based on the will in some other independent proceedings.” 5. This Court proceeded on the above basis and decided the issue accordingly. After having given such a concession, it comes with little grace from the petitioner now to say that this Court did not consider his contentions on merits. One fails to understand, how the present grounds could be taken by the petitioner. It is gross abuse of the process of this Court. The Review Petition is misconceived, ill-advised and misdirected. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta RP No.628/10 4 RP No.628/10 5