IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 RP.No. 954 of 2009(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13387/2009 Dated 14/09/2009 .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS --------------------------------------------- 1. E.SUBAIR, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 48 YEARS, CHALAYIL HOUSE, KORANGATTUPARAMBU,MALLAKKAPADY ROAD, EDATHALA P.O.,ALUVA. 2. SUBAIRATH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.SUBAIR, CHALAYIL HOUSE,KORANGATTUPARAMBU, MALLAKKAPADY ROAD,EDATHALA P.O.,ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. T.A.JOSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS,MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD.,308/2, S.A.ROAD,VYTTILA,KOCHI-19,ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOORE TALUK. 2. VARGHESE K.V., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,S/O.VARGHESE, MANAGER,CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD., KARATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,ALUVA KARA, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK. 3. M/S.CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD., REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONFIDENT PROJECT INDIA LTD.,308/2, S.A.ROAD,VYTTILA,KOCHI-19, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE,KANAYANNOORE TALUK. BY ADV.MR.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 954 of of 2009 in W.P.(C) No. 13387 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 7th October, 2009 ORDER The Review Petition has been filed by the petitioners in W.P.C.No.13387 of 2009 to review the judgment dated 14th September, 2009. The Writ Petition, after hearing both sides, was dismissed. Concurrent findings entered by the two courts below over an application for interim injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in a suit still awaiting for trial, on dismissal of that application, was challenged before this court in the Writ Petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. After hearing the submissions of the counsel on both sides, the judgment was rendered dismissing the Writ Petition. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, there was an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo and that order has to be restored which otherwise would cause law and order problem is the main ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for reviewing the judgment. I do not find any merit in the submission made. A review is permissible only on satisfaction that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or such other grounds as envisaged by law. No party to a proceeding has a vested right to seek R.P.No.954/09 - 2 - a review of the order/judgment passed in a petition. There is no merit in the review petition and it is dismissed. srd S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE