IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 CRP.No. 62 of 2009 ------------------------------- IA.7681/2006 IN OS.141/2001 of PRL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF: VISALAKSHY, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.NAMBIATH KARTHYAYANI AMMA, CHERPU VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.S.B.PREMACHANDRA PRABHU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: 1. SARASWATHY, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.NAMBIATH, KARTHYAYANI AMMA, CHERPU VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. DEVIPRASAD, S/O.NAMBIATH VISALAKSHY, CHERPU VILLAGE-DESOM, THRISSUR. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- C.R.P.No.62 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER The plaintiff in O.S.No.141/01 on the file of the Sub Court, Thrissur is the petitioner. It is submitted that a preliminary decree has been passed in O.S.No.141/01, but that the share calculation has gone wrong and that therefore, I.A.No.7681/06 was filed in the court below to review the judgment, but the said application was dismissed vide order impugned. If at all the party is aggrieved by the preliminary decree passed, the remedy is to prefer an appeal. If, according to the petitioner, it was only a clerical mistake, which could be corrected by a review petition, no doubt, review petition could be filed. Then the court below should have been made to get convinced of the alleged clerical mistake. However, if the counsel for the petitioner could not do that, the remedy is only to prefer an appeal against the preliminary decree. CRP 62/09 2 This revision petition filed against the order passed by the court below on the review petition, in the circumstances, is not maintainable and is dismissed. 4th February, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv