IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 R.P.No. 796 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN RSA.772/2007 Dated 11/09/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ----------------------- N. BABU, S/O. CHOMA, AGED 66 YEARS, PUTHARIYADUKAM, THEKKIL VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. G.L. KHADERKUNHI, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, DESHYATH, CHEMMANAD VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. T.M. SHAFI, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 54 YEARS, KOMBAMPARA, KALANAD VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.V.V. ASOKAN FOR R1 SMT.S. AMINA FOR R1 SRI. KODOTH SREEDHARAN FOR R2 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.P.796/08 ORDER ON I.A. 1622OF 2008 IN R.P.796 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 19/9/2008 SD/- M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. OkB/- //TRUE COPY// M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== R.P. NO. 796 OF 2008 in R.S.A.No.772/2007 & C.M.Appl.No.554/2008 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of September 2008 ORDER This petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the judgment dated 11.9.2007 along with an application to condone the delay of 228 days. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, first respondent/plaintiff and second respondent second defendant were heard. 3. The appeal was dismissed in limine at the admission stage. The judgment is sought to be reviewed on the ground that Second Appeal was not admitted holding that the second defendant did not file an appeal and second respondent has now filed an appeal as R.S.A.711/2008 with a petition to condone the delay and therefore the judgment is to be reviewed. It was also contended that the right of the second respondent was not considered in the R.P.796/2008 2 judgment. 4.Learned counsel appearing for second respondent submitted that as the second appeal was dismissed on the ground that second defendant did not file an appeal and now second respondent has filed an independent appeal, the judgment is to be reviewed. 5. Though fact that second defendant did not file an appeal was stated in the judgment, the second appeal was not dismissed in limine on the ground that second defendant did not file an appeal. It is found that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal and appeal was dismissed. I do not find any apparent error or other sufficient reason to review the judgment. Though learned counsel appearing for second respondent argued that his rights were not considered in the judgment and so the judgment is to be reviewed, I cannot agree with the submission. The right of the appellant if any is to be decided in his appeal. Whether there is any substantial question of law involved in the appeal is to be R.P.796/2008 3 decided in R.S.A.711/2008. 6. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to condone the delay or to review the judgment. Petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006